Re: Norton vs McAfee
From: Richard Perry (newsgroups_at_perrysonline.net.nospam)
Date: 02/24/04
- Next message: chris: "spy virus"
- Previous message: Mike Burgess: "Re: trojan horse downloader.t"
- In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: Norton vs McAfee"
- Next in thread: David H. Lipman: "Re: Norton vs McAfee"
- Reply: David H. Lipman: "Re: Norton vs McAfee"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:01:10 -0800
Dave-
I am replying to this message as I do not wish to propagate your other
response to my other post. I am looking for helpful information, not
ramblings.
However, this post contains a lot of beneficial information and I would like
to get more details from you with how you use this product. Your stated use
of McAfee is identical to the current implementation that I am working in
with one exception. We are deploying v7 on all Windows 2000 workstations.
However, we are not "pushing" anything to any workstation or server. We are
manually installing the software on all workstations, and setting the
software to do an autoupdate on system startup. For the most part, this is
covering all of our antivirus needs.
I have one major complaint about our current setup. I have no way at the
present time to load a central console and see how many machines are
currently running any version of software, the latest dat file installed,
the current engine installed, or the number of viruses caught on any
workstation. Any or all of this information is critical in my mind as it
would help me to identify machines that might be vulnerable, users that have
a high number of viruses and can therefore be considered a risk, and justify
the latest upgrade to the latest version if necessary (future use).
I have not found that the current version of McAfee Enterprise contains the
tools that would allow me to do this. Since you are not only a fan of
McAfee, but also a current user of the software, you are in a good position
to point out how I can use the software. Just keep in mind that it is not
enough for me to simply deploy the software. I want to report on where that
software is and how well it is working.
Richard
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:uhBxxNO%23DHA.2988@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> RP:
>
> I am the opposite of Bruce.
>
> My experience is with McAfee corp. products not Symantec.
>
> I believe McAfee has the best enterprise products but they modify it
sometimes too much. I
> currently use Netshield on servers and McAfee v4.5.1 SP1 on all
workstations. We have
> VirusScan Enterprise v7.1 but I have not implemented it on workstations
because of two
> reasons.
> 1. Change in the way the NT Services are loaded
> 2. McAfee no longer interprets the VSC ASCII directive files.
>
> I don't use ePO (E. Policy Orchestrator), I use Kixtart for our Login
Script interpreter to
> push the updates. One complaint I have is the desire by NAI/McAfee to
almost force the
> implementation of ePO.
>
> As for their home products, I have just recently started testing McAfee
VirusScan v8.0 Home
> Edition for our personnel's use at home. I find this to be a very good
product based upon
> the complaints on previous versions. It is not the bloatware many have
complained about in
> previous versions and it uses the MS Task manager instead of it own Task
Scheduler. The
> installer is only 8.4MB while McAfee VirusScan v7.03 Home Edition was
>35MB.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "Richard Perry" <newsgroups@perrysonline.net.nospam> wrote in message
> news:uYs7E$M%23DHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> | I have read the replies, and they all seem to be directed to home
products.
> | I would like to get some views from a corporate standpoint. At my last
> | company, we used Symantec Corporate Edition 7.60. At my new company,
they
> | are currently using McAfee Enterprise v7.0.
> |
> | I would like to hear about personal experience between these two
products. I
> | personally think that Symantec Corporate Edition is a much better
product.
> | However, I am receiving a lot of resistance to this idea. Perhaps I am
> | really the one who has been fooled????
> |
> | Richard
> |
> | "billw1701" <billw1701@abiteyahoo.com> wrote in message
> | news:10dee01c3f4e3$ae7df630$a301280a@phx.gbl...
> | > I hav used Norton since 1997. I have always been pleased
> | > with the program. However I am not happy with amount of
> | > system resources that my current version (2003)eats up. I
> | > have not worked with McAfee and only know what I read here
> | > about the program.
> | >
> | > I was in the store yesterday and noticed that both
> | > products cost about the same($39.00). However befor I take
> | > that step I would like to know if McAfee also tends to eat
> | > up resources as well.
> | >
> | > I am running Windows XP Pro with a 300 mhz processor. (I
> | > know, it's a dinosaur, but a new computer is not in my
> | > near future.) it also has 264 megs of RAM.
> | >
> | > Any info would be appreciated.
> | > TIA
> | > Bill
> |
> |
>
>
- Next message: chris: "spy virus"
- Previous message: Mike Burgess: "Re: trojan horse downloader.t"
- In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: Norton vs McAfee"
- Next in thread: David H. Lipman: "Re: Norton vs McAfee"
- Reply: David H. Lipman: "Re: Norton vs McAfee"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
