Comparison of Putty and SECURECRT

Transferred from: http://blog.csdn.net/russule/article/details/3023186

See how people compare these two tools on the Web:
Access to Linux from Windows, with the exception of samba, is probably the most putty and securecrt of everyday operations.

Putty is free, SECURECRT is chargeable (of course, there is a cracked version).
Putty default configuration is good to use, securecrt default configuration is not for Linux and difficult to see.
Putty can be used immediately, SECURECRT need to undergo a complex configuration to use, and SecureCRT to Linux under the support of Emacs is not good enough.
Putty Support VI After the end of the back to the previous screen, SecureCRT I did not find this feature. SECURECRT Exit VI, there is a bunch of the screen just before the contents of the VI, not refreshing.
These differences make securecrt often uncomfortable to use .

Putty does not support automatic login LINUX,SECURECRT supports automatic login to Linux. This distinction appears putty more secure and securecrt more convenient.
Putty does not support simultaneous logons to multiple LINUX,SECURECRT can log in to a Linux in each tab page.
The above two differences make Securecrt more suitable for system administrators .

I prefer to use putty when I write code and use it normally. But when I need to do a lot of Linux like a system administrator, I prefer to use SECURECRT.

Initiate
SecureCRT's support for GDB under Linux is not good enough. after GDB has used the layout command, it is not possible to return to the previous display mode with C+x and C+a under SECURECRT. (There may be some hidden options that need to be set up, and even if there's a hidden option to fix the problem, it's a hassle to set up)

Comparison of Putty and SECURECRT