+55
Considering for Future Release

Host desktop client that is not browser based

anonymous 4 years ago updated by Alex Heylin 8 months ago 30 5 duplicates

Partner requests for a desktop-based client for connecting to sessions.

Available in Version:

Duplicates 5

+2

This would be great. If there was some way to integrate this into LabTech's user system, so that techs can remote in using a desktop app without needing screenconnect-only accounts, that'd really be a huge help.

Is this a separate download somewhere, or not yet available?

Is this a request to have ScreenConnector as a supported extension? If so, is there a feature request for the ScreenConnector extension to fit the use model?

Check the forums for a program someone made, I believe, called ScreenConnector.

Pending Review

I added a +1 for your first two suggestion since they were already registered.

Could you please explain what you are looking for with your third request?

3. client grouping and share permission in Remote Access. >> this features already in screenconnect

Great, thank you!

You got My concept? Its something like Bomgar Representative console, but Please donot change mobile client its very good, Better than bomgar too

Yes, I understood.

Thanks for the positive feedback.

+1

And yes one more thing Open Windows as in tab mode, Not New Windows, because when open multiple system its goes issue also system hung

This sounds like a great additional connect option.

+1

Hi Brandon,

Are you requesting a way for customers to initiate a session from their desktop? If so, we're working on providing a standalone guest client that would allow this.

+1

Negative. This is a client to set on the TECH's machine and alert the tech of new connections for support, and provide a nice handy popup list of clients that can be connected to via one click. A time saver to avoid having to keep website up all the time.

Under Review
+2

Tabbed interface is a must for this program.

Pending Review

We are also missing the tabbed interface functionality from Bomgar. It is the only reason we are keeping ours alive.

Considering for Future Release
+1

We need a stand alone client that also focuses on muli-chats. It is easy to lose track in a web portal when you chat with multiple users.

This post seems to be kinda dead, Can you tell us more about this being considered for a future release? We are all excited. Personally I am coming from another solution that already had this desktop app, and it is a huge step backwards to not have t his with your solution. So I am hopeful since it has been considered for over 9 months that you guys are very close to at least a beta of this app? 

+2

I have always thought the thing that set CW control apart was a web based interface. I don't like installed representative portal software, like what BOMGAR offers because cross platform desktop apps are almost always hideous and clunky unless they use Electron or similar technologies (e.g. VSCode or Spotify) or are massive enough to develop and maintain native cross platform apps (e.g. Photoshop). 


I do support significant improvements to the client apps - both the support and access clients as well as the host clients (I think they should be native apps, not reliant on Java). But I can't support developing yet another desktop based portal for CW to maintain unless it is an Electron-like app that uses HTML and the same web backend - this could mean it could additionally offer things like quick session launching, persistent sign in, tooltips, tray icons and desktop notifications (good suggestion above by Brandon Stone). This I would absolutely support. 


The browser interface should be improved, particularly for mobile. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Creating another representative portal aside from the browser one will, I suggest, lead to fragmentation and fewer updates as it creates added complexity of managing 2 sets of code - the asp.net web frontend AND a full, separate desktop client. Be careful what you wish for. 

Under Review
-1
Considering for Future Release

If this is being considered, please don't consider sunsetting the tech web interface. This is really nice and a breath of fresh air compared to other services. If this is forced, please the host side of things compatible with macOS.

+1

We do not want to sunset the tech web interface.... In fact that web piece is awesome so you can access it from any machine you may be near. As a tech that is invaluable being able to work from any pc, and not having to install a client to use it when out in the field. But, When I'm at my home PC, I want the ability to have a stand alone client as well.  As good as the website is, and its fantastic, I still prefer a client because its instant, I'm not having to wait on a web browser to load, Visit the site, Login, and then search. With an client app on your PC, you simply open the app, the credentials are already remembered, and you simply  start searching for the PC you are trying to work on.   

There is no reason a software as good as Connect Wise cannot support both interfaces. :) 

There is no reason a software as good as Connect Wise cannot support both interfaces. :)

I think there is a pretty good reason for not creating a separate, native, desktop app *and* a Web UI. It's duplicating functionality and would be a nightmare to maintain.

What this 'standalone client' should be, I think, is a specialised web browser, perhaps using a Blink/Chromium backend. But, it can then contain important "glue" between the web app and the host client. For instance:

- double clicking a session in the web UI could immediately launch a session. 

- desktop notifications could be sent

- saved login credentials

Think that's what you're thinking off @Matthew Pendleton? If so, I agree wholeheartedly. 

If you want a "thick" app -  just wrap the web UI in Chrome and turn off the menu bars etc. ;-)  That's basically what the Spotify thick client is for example.  Check out the --app switch for Chrome.


One of the joys of SC is the great web app that just works.  User authentication via LT is a whole different issue completely unrelated to thick client.