McAfee vs Symantic

NOD32 is quite well known and is used by quite a few corporates. NOD32 is an Anti-Virus Product with Anti-Spyware and email protection, but you can turn off the email protection if you already have another product that you use for that.

NOD32 provides low memory and cpu usage. Very easy to configure and cen be controlled via a Remote Admin Console (provided with business versions), it also has a LAN Mirror so all the PC's on the Network can update from a Local Serer that you setup as the mirror server.

There are quite a few other threads about NOD32, just search for Anti-Virus to get other opinions regarding nod32 as well as other Anti-virus products.
 
NOD32 - refer to above post - its Awesome and 100% Thumbs Up

You want a network package with LAN mirror. You need to look at business products and not home versions.

Symantic Corporate edition is also highly recommended - its not Norton ( they are 2 separate products ). McAfee Corporate allows you basically 3 licences for the price of 1.

EDIT: NOD32 is a very respected product. Sysadmins throught SA will recommend it.
 
I'd stay far away from Symantic. It gets the job done...but it chows memory and performance like nothing else.

Can't really comment about McAfee.
 
The main problem with the latest Symantec Corp AV is that it's system intensive, and combines with a stream of errors that Symantec is apparently not interested in fixing, has made many people move away.

From personal experience here at my work, Symantec is also not too good at detecting malware and other nasties.

I can't comment on McAfee, since I've never used it. From what I've heard though, it's also started to suffer from serious bloat.

Once again, I add my voice to the NOD32 crowd, well worth a look. Your clients are being stubborn, and will only realise their mistake once people start complaining how slow the computers have become after you install the AV from Symantec or McAfee.
 
I would recommend McAfee in a Symantec vs McAfee situation, although I'd also like to point out that, if this was not the case, I would recommend NOD32 :)
 
And for Symantec Endpoint Protection (the corporate package), if a PC does not have at least 786Mb - 1GB Ram (512 will just about make the PC usable), forget about it. And disable error reporting (so that it doesn't create error dump files) otherwise you might find yourself out of disk space very quickly!
 
I have Symantic on my work machine at it's utterly hopeless. It doesn't pick up anything even though I knew I had spyware
 
Yes we all know NOD32 rocks the boat...but between Samcraptech and Mccrappee Mccrappee wins marginally

1.) Just anti-virus! We don't need and firewalls, email protection etc.
Firewall comes seperate on the enterprise edition

2.) Very efficient real time scanning - low memory & cpu usage etc.
Eh,runs fine on P4's,50mb memory footprint with realtime scanning

3.) Easy to configure to exclude specific folders from scanning.
Doable with the enterprise manager

4.) Obviously must give best results (least false positives, catch the most STD's)
Eh,well,you dont have brilliant options either way so rock/hard place

5.) If possible have the definition database updateable via a domain controller (or similar) as none of the machines are connected to the internet.
mcaffee can update from a file repository on the domain - the enterprise manager can handle this

6.) The system we are running on these machines is extremely network intensive, so must interfere with network traffic as little as possible.
No noticeable influence on network traffic as long as u dont use the firewall or antispyware modules
 
Last edited:
I'd go for McAfee - they have with a doubt the best management platform on the market for management of policies and deployment of pattern files. I've gone through symantec/trend/kaspersky - they don't even some close from the management point of view.

For a SOHO I'd go for kaspersky (for a handfull of machines) but if you need to manage lots of machines then McAfee.
 
Nod said:
Completed your sentence for you :p
TBH, Trend is useless.
Click to expand...

These are the requirements:
1.) Just anti-virus! We don't need and firewalls, email protection etc.
2.) Very efficient real time scanning - low memory & cpu usage etc.
3.) Easy to configure to exclude specific folders from scanning.
4.) Obviously must give best results (least false positives, catch the most STD's)
5.) If possible have the definition database updateable via a domain controller (or similar) as none of the machines are connected to the internet.
6.) The system we are running on these machines is extremely network intensive, so must interfere with network traffic as little as possible.



Never claimed it was the best but it meets 5 of his 6 requirements.
 
dequadin said:
Hi guys,


Thanks!
Click to expand...

I would go with McAfee. Norton AV is a resource hog in comparison. I've used McAfee on one of my machines for a good few years and never had a problem, although it did pick up a few viruses in IE after that loaded some
pages. You can configure it appropriately.
 
I also wouldn't recommend ANY Symantec product. Neither any McAfee as it is also a bit harsh on the memory... NOD32 ALL THE WAY...! Explain to your client what you would recommend, and maybe refer them to this thread...!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X