IT Employment
by dafe2
Just a thought & Suggestion:
As far as I know AVG doesn't protect mail services..
Had you looked into Mcafee? They may offer something similar $$ wise. We've not had any issues since implementation 5-6 years ago.
Management station is nice & it integrates with SMS easily if required. Just a thought.
by oz_media
I have installed it several times to compliment an anti-spam solution and scan mail before it is processed by the server.
One thing you can always count on with AVG products, they are robust yet VERY resourceful!
MacAffee and Norton are not only WAAAAAAAY over priced for what you get, they simply hog resources and cause network headaches, slowdowns and hangs something nasty. I wouldn't even use them for home installations.
AVG has a version for Exchange 2000/2003, Lotus Notes, Linux etc. You will just have to purchase the version for you specific mail server and then add the file server and network copy to keep workstations and the server scanned as well as the email server. CHEAPER? You couldn't get any cheaper and more stable.
AVG makes a fantastic product!
by dafe2
The E-Mail Edition does
The poster said Network Edition
Also, we don't know what feature sets are important or how much value is placed on them
Mcafee, granted for a fee, is extremely flexible in an Enterprise.
by oz_media
[i]As far as I know AVG doesn't protect mail services.[/i]
Well AVG does but the AVG Network edition is for the desktops while the AVG Email version is needed for the email server.
And no offense;
I didn't mean to shoot down your system. It's just that I have resolved SO many client issues and server hangs that are directly due to those systems (NOrton or MacAfee) not releasing resources or tying up FAR more processes than needed.
Personally I despise BOTH of them(Norton & MacAffee), I see them as a complete waste of money when you can get the same thing for far less with fewer issues to deal with. They don't prove to be any better than AVG and certainly aren't anywhere near as good as e-Trust, they are so problematic and yet are so popular to boot?
Good marketing goes a long way with those two, bundling them with new PC's gets the home users to like them and trust them, often not realizing how many problems they are experiencing due to them. After a trial expires it offers and easy way to pay for a licence so people keep it at home, unless they become too problematic and someone dumps in AVG free for them.
Then they take it into the Enterprise and think that it is the only solution, wheras MANY scanners are far better and from what I have experienced, much more resourceful.
This is a key I look for in software, it must be robust but VERY resourceful, I HATE resource hogs, which is why I won't use XP either! Any Windows 2000 clone that needs 256MB of RAM to boot does not sound appealing. :D
Of course, IMHO!
by dafe2
Your right, what I said was not what I was thinking or meaning to type...... I was also NOT discounting the Posters options rather just getting him to think about Mail. That's it.
I didn't think you where "shooting" anything. I'm not that thin skinned.
As far as this "I have resolved SO many client issues and server hangs that are directly due to those systems (NOrton or MacAfee) not releasing resources or tying up FAR more processes than needed."
No offense - But give me a break huh? You really don't want to go there.....
Now, as far as product choices I prefer Mcafee in an Enterprise Environment. It's rock solid, manageable & reliable. It provides good value for a fair price. My experience was somewhat different than yours. No server room that I've ever managed experienced a Virus OR a server hang due to Mcafee. I'm not a fan of Symantec simply because in our case it's Management features were inferior to Mcafee. Simple as that.
AVG offered less than that again. Simple as that too.
I could give a sh.it what people use in their homes & I care even less about some user making noise and generating help desk calls because he's decided, after reading PC Magazine or whatever that Mcaffee is causing his PC to 'operate ineficiently.' User opinions about what's used in Server Rooms is given about as much attention as office gossip.
As far as the rest, you know what they they about opinions.
:-)
by aiak0s
"I'm not a fan of Symantec simply because in our case it's Management features were inferior to Mcafee. Simple as that.
AVG offered less than that again. Simple as that too."
Could you expand on this? What features are missing in AVG that Mcafee offers?
Thanks
by dafe2
In fairness to AVG we evaluated it in the summer of 2003 on a 3000 node network and we compared it to Mcafee Enterprise. I've not looked at it since:
If memory serves the features we found lacking or weak where as follows:
1/ Remote Administration (Management Console) - Hung Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Edition several times during a two week trial. Also (client) updates where only 70% successful.
2/ In our opinion, the interface seemed kludgy, immature
3/ No SMS agent was available
4/ Very limited reporting capabilities
5/ No security on client side to lock down configuration
Once again, I don't believe we were comparing apples & apples. I don't know the size of your network, reporting requirements (if any) or if your end users will 'control' the update cycle.
One nice Mcafee feature (I like) is the ability to publish virus statistics to an intranet to promote security awareness to your user community.
Just thought it would be worth some of your time to take a look at the product.
by oz_media
But as for hangs and resource hogs, it doesn't take confused user opinions to show me a performance log.
I don't know if there is a difference between how well they run on Novell Networks compared to MS but I can assure you, BOTH of those products wreak havoc on a Netware server, epsecially when a common server load on a BUSY Novell network usually avgs. under 28%, with those products installed this will avg. 80 -100% continually, not very resourceful, you may as well add MS software. Changing to e-Trust or even AVG it will remain at 28-30%, so the numbers and hands on experience show me otherwise.
As for home users, I couldn't give a sh*t what people use either, the problem is that these same people will rant and rave about such products when it comes to the office and I find that's why MOST clients I am called to have used Norton or MacAffee, "well we use it at home and I know it's really popular!"
by dafe2
Netware, that's why your comment made no sense to me or technical sense & I challenged you.
I presumed you where talking about Windows, my specialty. For the record, Windows Servers (mine) run about 38% utilized with few un-planned outages. (1 or 2 a YEAR)
Fair ball :-)
by it_lobo
I use AVG Network Edition on the network I am currently in charge of. We have not had any issues what so ever. AVG has performed without as much as a single hiccup. It is easy to setup and deploy. It also intergrates well with Outlook. They keep there virus definitions up to date.
I have worked with Norton in the passed and was not impressed at all.
AVG also has good support staff that responds quickly to any issues (there will be verrrrry few).
by rbnelsrbnels
If you're setting it up with any configuration other than the defaults, be prepared to work a bit with AVG's tech support (email only, but quick turnaround) as not everything's covered in the docos but the end result will be rock-solid. See my more detailed findings in this thread: https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=40&threadID=187181&messageID=2447239
Am much happier with it's effectiveness in detecting/removing viruses compared to McAfees. :)
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Sort by Trending