Ivor Shepcar 
United Kingdom
Member since
2/28/2008
Platinum Membership
Posts: 28
 |
| 3/04/2008 01:18 PM |
|
any reason why you wouldn't use Symantec? or just biased?
I know we all have our favourites but to dismiss Symantec withiout reason seems a bit pointless.
It's like saying Microsoft sucks |
|
|
|
|
|
Neil Beswick
United Kingdom
Member since
9/26/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 97
|
| 3/04/2008 01:31 PM |
|
| Yep - I had a client who used SAV, with no problems. They needed to purchase some additional licences, but couldn't as the product was no longer supported, and so "upgraded" to Endpoint. This caused a number of problems for them - many of which can be read about by searching - such as intermittent loss of client connectivity and server "hangs" (couldn't log onto the console). After reading around the problems other people had, and after trying a variety of fixes, we removed Endpoint from the server / clients in favour of Sophos, and have had no problems since - this was around 2 months ago, whereas with Endpoint, we'd require a server restart every 5 - 10 days. |
|
|
|
|
|
william warren
United States
Member since
12/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 551
|
| 3/04/2008 01:32 PM |
|
| Well..let's see..it's security record is unraveling(buffer overflows, etc etc.), it's detection rate is only in the high 80's in many areas, it's a resource hog, when it gets messed up it's nearly impossible to remove, there's much cheaper alternatives that perform much better with less overhead. |
|
Registered Microsoft Partner |
|
|
|
Neil Beswick
United Kingdom
Member since
9/26/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 97
|
| 3/04/2008 02:33 PM |
|
Yep - I also agree with what William says. SAV is notoriously difficult to remove - I've worked with cases where Symantec have been unable to remove their own product (SAV 7.x). I've known it cause problems on Windows system (exhausting non-pages pool and causing blue screens) etc etc etc.
As a general rule, and cost not permitting, you are better having 3 different products - one on the server, one email, and one on the client. However, most small businesses wouldn't want to spend that sort of money! |
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Mayo
Along the shoreline of New England
Member since
6/22/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 313
|
| 3/04/2008 02:46 PM |
|
Can find many similar threads such as this in the antivirus forum down below....but to rehash...
Years ago I was all about Symantec Corp Edition..was a reseller for it. Around version 9..I started getting disappointed in it...was useless against more current threats in the ad/spyware area.
After trying and researching..came across Esets NOD32...also a close runner up was Kaspersky. Both being top rated in detection/prevention/removal of ad/spyware.
When Symantec released version 10....it was sooo dang bloated..because a system crusher like their home product. Too many complaints from clients after upgrading them...that their systems ran like slugs.
Also had a few clients on McAfee versions.
So as we hopped onboard with Esets NOD32....noticed quite a few things.
*After uninstalling SAV or others...and installing NOD32...noticed systems ran much lighter/snappier. Clients even commented on this on their own.
*Noticed NOD32 started picking up things that the prior antivirus products never flagged
*Much better success with the management console..pushing installs, etc. No more spending hours of painfully tedious manual removal of SAV or McAfee products when they corrupted.
*Far less calls from customers requiring removal of some ad/spyware trojan that hijacked their system..because NOD stops it.
In my opinion...the big popular AV products just don't cut it anymore..look to products from Europe such as NOD32, Kaspersky, or BitDefender.
I have also started to implement 2ndary AV/SPAM removal products for my clients...a linux distro firewall/router www.untangle.com You can download and ISO for free and install it on your own hardware...between that..and the IMF in Exchange (also free)...you have a good "free" solution to aid in protecting your exchange server..and cutting down the majority of spam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
william warren
United States
Member since
12/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 551
|
| 3/04/2008 03:16 PM |
|
Astaro is actually not that hard to maintain..setting it up requires some thought. Ipcop is simpler but the addons take some experience to setup..but again administration is easy. routing is done automatically once you enter the parameters inside the control panels.. |
|
Registered Microsoft Partner |
|
|
|
Peter Ungerer
Germany
Member since
6/11/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 61
|
| 3/06/2008 06:45 AM |
|
Hello,
I use Panda Enterprise for some years now and it runs without any problems. Very easy to install and does not take a lot of time to administrate. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Foster
United Kingdom
Member since
12/10/2007
Platinum Membership
Posts: 38
|
| 3/06/2008 09:08 PM |
|
| I use Sophos on the server & workstations. I also use Cloudmark for spam. Would not touch Symantec, seen far too many problems with performance. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ivor Shepcar
United Kingdom
Member since
2/28/2008
Platinum Membership
Posts: 28
|
| 4/28/2008 06:02 PM |
|
wow - some of you guys really do to some lengths for protection.
we now have endpoint 11 MR2 on 10 SBS systems. Install and forget
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trent Peters
United States
Member since
4/16/2006
Platinum Membership
Posts: 116
|
| 5/07/2008 02:52 AM |
|
| I second Trend CSM, I too run it exclusively at 15+ SBS sites. In addition, it comes with Trend's Email Reputation Hosting services for free, enterprise strength spam blocking... I do find Trend CSM's built in spam blocker lacking. But pair the two together, can't beat it IMHO. Plus, the reporting is great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Loosveld
Belgium
Member since
4/10/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 1
|
| 5/09/2008 02:06 PM |
|
| I use Panda Administrator, works good... Maybe not the lightweight among them, but good product and telephonic support. You can use the licenses for standalones in the company too. Users cannot change any settings. Worth a try. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie Turnbull
United Kingdom
Member since
3/7/2006
Platinum Membership
Posts: 44
|
| 5/09/2008 04:29 PM |
|
I used Symantec Corporate Edition up to version 10 but now I use AVG. Symantec worked (most of the time) but it was very expensive and resource hungry. I also hate the way it got it's claws so deep into the system - check out Symantec's own kb article for removing just the server product:
It involves lots of manual registry hacks (and it's not fault free, I still had problems post removal). Removing the client is almost as much fun. AVG on the other hand, uninstalls properly at the click of a button.
AVG used to be much cheaper so the decision was a simple one. However, I do notice their prices are creeping up (still no where near symantec).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Mayo
Along the shoreline of New England
Member since
6/22/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 313
|
| 5/09/2008 05:09 PM |
|
Oh yeah...I've been through those steps many times...including when push installs or push updates fail on workstations..it's almost equally as laborious cleaning up a workstation attempting to get it to install correctly. UGH!
On a note back to my increased love for these linux appliances doing the job....www.untangle.com just released a major update..5.2 Optional now is having the Kaspersky antivirus engine for starting at 10 bucks a month...so the untangle box washes all the mail (and web if you use this as your router) traffic...thus replacing the need for an Exchange antivirus and spam component to additionally install. Less load on your server..happier server! |
|
|
|
|
|
william warren
United States
Member since
12/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 551
|
| 5/09/2008 05:17 PM |
|
| I tend to use Astaro for home users and larger business clients. for smaller businesses I have a cutom IPCOP solution i use if the client wants me to monitor and service..if not then It's usually Trend Micro.. |
|
Registered Microsoft Partner |
|
|
|
Nicolas Rabaté
France
Member since
7/1/2006
Platinum Membership
Posts: 43
|
| 5/10/2008 08:07 AM |
|
We use CA ITM v8.1
Nicolas
|
|
|
|
|
|