Avalan’s Remotely Possible/32 Remote Control Software

Symantec's pcANYWHERE32 may be the grande dame of remotecontrol software (see "Symantec's pcANYWHERE32,"), but it's not theonly choice for Windows NT. Avalan's Remotely Possible/32 is, in many ways, aleaner and meaner alternative to pcANYWHERE32.

Like pcANYWHERE32, Remotely Possible/32 lets a client system connect with ahost system and communicate with that user, transfer files, or assume control ofall its operations. But, the implementation of Remotely Possible/32 differs frompcANYWHERE32 in several areas. We brought Remotely Possible/32 into the lab toquickly look at these products' similarities and differences.

Like pcANYWHERE32, Remotely Possible/32 can work in a LAN environment orover a RAS link. Unlike pcANYWHERE32, Remotely Possible/32 supports only theTCP/IP protocol suite, although Avalan plans to support NetBIOS/NetBEUI andIPX/SPX in forthcoming releases (support for IPX/SPX should be available whenyou read this). Also unlike pcANYWHERE32, Remotely Possible/32 does not have aRAS alternative for direct dialing in the NT environment (the DOS and 16-bitWindows versions of Remotely Possible do have direct-dial modules).

Remotely Possible/32's support for only TCP/IP and its need for RAS tofacilitate dialing are not bad limitations. In fact, the Remotely Possible/32implementation over TCP/IP is versatile. For example, using RemotelyPossible/32, a client can browse the network to discover Remotely Possible/32host systems, as screen A illustrates. In contrast, pcANY-WHERE32 supportsbrowsing only over NetBIOS/NetBEUI and IPX/SPX links. Similarly, using RAS asthe dialing mechanism greatly simplifies the complexity of managing remoteconnections--you don't have to worry about which dialing interface to use oneither the client or the host. Of course, in addition to direct dialing,pcANYWHERE32 supports RAS connections, so you can achieve the same degree ofintegration with this product.

Networking aside, the biggest differences between these remote controlproducts are size and speed. In both cases, Remotely Possible/32 is the clearwinner--Remotely Possible/32 comes on one diskette (compared to four disks forpcANYWHERE32), and Remotely Possible/32 loads and runs faster than pcANYWHERE32.In fact, our lab tests show that Remotely Possible/32 loads and performs screenupdates twice as fast as pcANYWHERE32.

The question of which user interface is better is a toss-up. Symantec'spcANYWHERE32 features runtime wizards and drop-down menus, whereas RemotelyPossible/32 provides a simple tool bar and drop-down menus, as you see in screenB. Some users will prefer one interface, but this choice is subjective. Bothinterfaces are easy to understand and use. Similarly, the configurationinterfaces for both products are fairly evenly matched.

From a broader perspective, both products offer similar features. Bothproducts run the host-connection module as a service under NT. Both canaccommodate host connections before the NT logon process occurs. Both supportfast file transfer and client-host chat sessions (where the client user and hostuser can exchange messages). Both products provide an extra layer of securityfor remote control connections. And both products support data compres-sion anddata encryption.

The Uneven Ground
Once you get beyond the initial feature set and start working with theproducts' details, you find that Remotely Possible/32 has some unique advantagesover pcANYWHERE32.

On the flip side, pcANYWHERE32 has certain advantages over RemotelyPossible/32.

Remote-Control Solution
Remotely Possible/32 fared well in the Windows NT MagazineLab environment. Installation and operation are simple and straightforward, andthe superior speed is definitely noticeable. We had some difficulty runningRemotely Possible/32 as a host on our NT Server, but after talking with Avalan'stechnical support people, we are convinced that the problem was related to ourS3-compatible video adapter (a VESA-based Diamond Stealth 64 DRAM adapter). Theproduct operated fine in host mode on an NT Workstation running aCirrus-compatible adapter and on a Windows 95 system running a Western Digitaladapter. We had no problems running Remotely Possible/32 as a client on any ofour systems.

If you are looking for a remote control solution for a Windows NT orWindows 95 environment, look at Remotely Possible/32. Its speed and sizeadvantages--and its unique features--offset its slightly higher price.