Timbuktu for controlling or testing?

[Carsten Levin]

I would for sure use Timbuktu to controll other computers and test
environments ... if its running on separate hardware units.

We are testing om Mac OS 9, X and Windows. On Windows we would considder
Connectix Virtual PC, and keep the testing on one computer with many Virtual
PC Environments.

On the Mac we are doing it a little bit different ... althoug still keeping
it on one computer.

On Mac OS 9 we are using Multiple Users to set up a number of different test
environments. And each time we move to a new version we will make a new
user.
To make sure that the Revolution/MetaCard environment is also under controll
we will never have a Revolution installed in the shared areas - each
userenvironment has its own Revolution in its own "home" area, under OS 9 we
are using the documents folder.

On Mac OS X we are doing it the same way ... Revolution and the stacks are
stored in the home directory ... and new users are made when needen.

We are calling the users the version numbers ... and its giving us the
opportunity to go back and test older versions if it should be needed.

But when controlling other computers we prefer Timbuktu ... its even cross
platform and it works fine.

Carsten

>> I'm considering getting Remote Desktop for testing stacks and
>> standalones on Macintosh OS's.  I welcome any advice or reports on
>> experience in doing this or on Remote Desktop or on alternatives.
>> 
>> (I use VPC for Windows.)
>> 
>> I'm envisioning a few old Macs under a table or in a closet that I can
>> turn on as needed.  I then connect to them using Remote Desktop to run
>> tests applicable to that OS or hardware.  I'm thinking something like
>> a G3 that books OS X 10.1 or Mac 9.2 and an old PowerPC that boots
>> something older.
>> 
>> Would Timbuktu be a candidate for this?
>> 
>> Would this even be a useful test?
>> 
>> Dar Scott