recommended AV / firewall for Win2k3 Server ??

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Tom, Mar 12, 2005.

  1. Tom

    Tom Guest

    Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
    antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.

    Many thanks.

    Tom
     
    Tom, Mar 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tom

    Toolman Tim Guest

    "Tom" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128.86...
    > Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
    > antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
    >
    > Many thanks.
    >
    > Tom


    I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
    Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
    updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
    access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as far
    as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
    firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell Border
    Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for McAfee
    for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so for
    another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!

    There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
    software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape backup
    software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...
     
    Toolman Tim, Mar 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tom

    Tom Guest

    Thanks. I'm currently running Norton Corporate, but my confidence in
    anything "Norton" is not entirely solid. I'll take a look McAfee to see
    what they have that's W2k3 Server compatible.



    "Toolman Tim" <> wrote in
    news:rbMYd.4884$:

    > I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K
    > and Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts

    [snip]
     
    Tom, Mar 13, 2005
    #3
  4. Tom

    Toolman Tim Guest

    I do use an OLD version of Norton AV (nothing else Norton at this time) on
    my laptop. I think it's the 2002 version, maybe the 2003. I won't upgrade
    the software, but I keep up on the update license. I'm okay with the older
    version, but the newer ones do seem to be bloatware. But at work, some of
    the PCs are so old, I wouldn't dare put anything Norton on them. Heck, some
    are Pentium 133s running W98. Not enough RAM to install Norton, much less
    run it <g>. The corporate version of McAfee still included v4.51 for the W9x
    systems, and they do update the 'engine' as well as the DATs when needed, so
    it can still handle newer types of malware. I believe the latest version of
    McAfee even included some form of anti -pam software, although it doesn't
    run on my mail server (Groupwise).

    "Tom" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns96185F873E87Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128.90...
    > Thanks. I'm currently running Norton Corporate, but my confidence in
    > anything "Norton" is not entirely solid. I'll take a look McAfee to see
    > what they have that's W2k3 Server compatible.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Toolman Tim" <> wrote in
    > news:rbMYd.4884$:
    >
    >> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K
    >> and Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts

    > [snip]
     
    Toolman Tim, Mar 13, 2005
    #4
  5. Tom

    jda^fx Guest

    On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    24hoursupport.helpdesk:

    > "Tom" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128.86...
    >> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
    >> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
    >>
    >> Many thanks.
    >>
    >> Tom

    >
    > I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
    > Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
    > updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
    > access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as far
    > as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
    > firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell Border
    > Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for McAfee
    > for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so for
    > another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
    >
    > There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
    > software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape backup
    > software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...


    I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
    antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
    things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
    take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
    maintain centrally.
    --
    jda^fx
     
    jda^fx, Mar 13, 2005
    #5
  6. Tom

    Toolman Tim Guest

    "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    > 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >
    >> "Tom" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128.86...
    >>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
    >>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
    >>>
    >>> Many thanks.
    >>>
    >>> Tom

    >>
    >> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
    >> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
    >> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
    >> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as
    >> far
    >> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
    >> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell Border
    >> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for
    >> McAfee
    >> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so
    >> for
    >> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
    >>
    >> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
    >> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape backup
    >> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...

    >
    > I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
    > antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
    > things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
    > take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
    > maintain centrally.


    Well, that sounds good then.

    I don't totally dislike the tape backup software (Brightstor Arcserve), but
    the management software is slow, and hard to configure sometimes (I have
    problems with restoring files from one server to a different one). Besides,
    it forces me to use UNC instead of drive letters. I'm not used to that. And
    the latest version exhibits memory fragmentation or something that causes my
    server to run low on memory after a week or two, forcing reboots much more
    frequently than I would prefer. Tech support has been fairly responsive, but
    they don't have an answer for the memory problem. If I didn't have 5 or 6
    years of archived data in their format, I probably would have switched to a
    different software package.

    McAfee, once set up, is also very low-maintenance, and has been 100%
    effective for us at work. The workstation component hasn't been a problem at
    all, unlike some of the McAfee 'retail' packages I've worked with.
     
    Toolman Tim, Mar 13, 2005
    #6
  7. Tom

    jda^fx Guest

    On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:36:34 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    24hoursupport.helpdesk:

    > "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >>
    >>> "Tom" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128.86...
    >>>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
    >>>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
    >>>>
    >>>> Many thanks.
    >>>>
    >>>> Tom
    >>>
    >>> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
    >>> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
    >>> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
    >>> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as
    >>> far
    >>> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
    >>> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell Border
    >>> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for
    >>> McAfee
    >>> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so
    >>> for
    >>> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
    >>>
    >>> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
    >>> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape backup
    >>> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...

    >>
    >> I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
    >> antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
    >> things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
    >> take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
    >> maintain centrally.

    >
    > Well, that sounds good then.
    >
    > I don't totally dislike the tape backup software (Brightstor Arcserve), but
    > the management software is slow, and hard to configure sometimes (I have
    > problems with restoring files from one server to a different one). Besides,
    > it forces me to use UNC instead of drive letters. I'm not used to that. And
    > the latest version exhibits memory fragmentation or something that causes my
    > server to run low on memory after a week or two, forcing reboots much more
    > frequently than I would prefer. Tech support has been fairly responsive, but
    > they don't have an answer for the memory problem. If I didn't have 5 or 6
    > years of archived data in their format, I probably would have switched to a
    > different software package.
    >
    > McAfee, once set up, is also very low-maintenance, and has been 100%
    > effective for us at work. The workstation component hasn't been a problem at
    > all, unlike some of the McAfee 'retail' packages I've worked with.


    We are using McAfee at my new work as well, and one thing has me
    worried. When trying to deploy the new version 8 silently using the
    ..msi file in the package one out of three or four instances there
    comes an error that it is not compatible with Win XP. I have not seen
    this error when installing from top to buttom starting to unwrap the
    ..exe downloaded from mcafee though. But the other install method is in
    their documentation, and it is normally the way to deploy new
    programes in a windows server environment
    --
    jda^fx
     
    jda^fx, Mar 13, 2005
    #7
  8. Tom

    Toolman Tim Guest

    "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    news:n7ty5av9i10e$.oh7ncpaeaf28$...
    > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:36:34 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    > 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >
    >> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >>>
    >>>> "Tom" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128.86...
    >>>>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
    >>>>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Many thanks.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Tom
    >>>>
    >>>> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
    >>>> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
    >>>> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
    >>>> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as
    >>>> far
    >>>> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
    >>>> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell
    >>>> Border
    >>>> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for
    >>>> McAfee
    >>>> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so
    >>>> for
    >>>> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
    >>>>
    >>>> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
    >>>> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape
    >>>> backup
    >>>> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...
    >>>
    >>> I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
    >>> antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
    >>> things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
    >>> take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
    >>> maintain centrally.

    >>
    >> Well, that sounds good then.
    >>
    >> I don't totally dislike the tape backup software (Brightstor Arcserve),
    >> but
    >> the management software is slow, and hard to configure sometimes (I have
    >> problems with restoring files from one server to a different one).
    >> Besides,
    >> it forces me to use UNC instead of drive letters. I'm not used to that.
    >> And
    >> the latest version exhibits memory fragmentation or something that causes
    >> my
    >> server to run low on memory after a week or two, forcing reboots much
    >> more
    >> frequently than I would prefer. Tech support has been fairly responsive,
    >> but
    >> they don't have an answer for the memory problem. If I didn't have 5 or 6
    >> years of archived data in their format, I probably would have switched to
    >> a
    >> different software package.
    >>
    >> McAfee, once set up, is also very low-maintenance, and has been 100%
    >> effective for us at work. The workstation component hasn't been a problem
    >> at
    >> all, unlike some of the McAfee 'retail' packages I've worked with.

    >
    > We are using McAfee at my new work as well, and one thing has me
    > worried. When trying to deploy the new version 8 silently using the
    > .msi file in the package one out of three or four instances there
    > comes an error that it is not compatible with Win XP. I have not seen
    > this error when installing from top to buttom starting to unwrap the
    > .exe downloaded from mcafee though. But the other install method is in
    > their documentation, and it is normally the way to deploy new
    > programes in a windows server environment


    Really? I didn't have that problem at all - probably 30+ workstations on XP.
    I agree about the silent install - it's certainly the way to go. I used
    their installation creation software to customize my install package (dang,
    I wish I could remember the name of that <g>) and used Novell's ZEN
    functions to schedule it, and ran it silently. It knew where my update DATs
    folder was, had schedules in place, and everything. I've spot checked the
    workstations, and they seem to be updating right on schedule. It did take
    some effort to get the auto updater to work on the server, but I think that
    was my problem...not understanding some of the terms used.

    For the most part, we use the W2K server as a workstation. It has the server
    software on it only because the timeclock software requires a database
    program that doesn't run on Novell. Anyone in payroll can remotely run the
    timeclock software now. Other than that, it's not used as a server. So the
    McAfee is ran on the Netware system instead, and the W2K server only has the
    McAfee client software on it. Maybe that's why I haven't had problems with
    pushing the client software off to the workstations - Netware does it
    instead of Windows Networking.
     
    Toolman Tim, Mar 13, 2005
    #8
  9. Tom

    jda^fx Guest

    On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:13:46 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    24hoursupport.helpdesk:

    > "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    > news:n7ty5av9i10e$.oh7ncpaeaf28$...
    >> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:36:34 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >>
    >>> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >>>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Tom" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128.86...
    >>>>>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
    >>>>>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Many thanks.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Tom
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K and
    >>>>> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
    >>>>> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have Internet
    >>>>> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely, as
    >>>>> far
    >>>>> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
    >>>>> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell
    >>>>> Border
    >>>>> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for
    >>>>> McAfee
    >>>>> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included, so
    >>>>> for
    >>>>> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
    >>>>> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape
    >>>>> backup
    >>>>> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
    >>>> antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
    >>>> things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
    >>>> take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
    >>>> maintain centrally.
    >>>
    >>> Well, that sounds good then.
    >>>
    >>> I don't totally dislike the tape backup software (Brightstor Arcserve),
    >>> but
    >>> the management software is slow, and hard to configure sometimes (I have
    >>> problems with restoring files from one server to a different one).
    >>> Besides,
    >>> it forces me to use UNC instead of drive letters. I'm not used to that.
    >>> And
    >>> the latest version exhibits memory fragmentation or something that causes
    >>> my
    >>> server to run low on memory after a week or two, forcing reboots much
    >>> more
    >>> frequently than I would prefer. Tech support has been fairly responsive,
    >>> but
    >>> they don't have an answer for the memory problem. If I didn't have 5 or 6
    >>> years of archived data in their format, I probably would have switched to
    >>> a
    >>> different software package.
    >>>
    >>> McAfee, once set up, is also very low-maintenance, and has been 100%
    >>> effective for us at work. The workstation component hasn't been a problem
    >>> at
    >>> all, unlike some of the McAfee 'retail' packages I've worked with.

    >>
    >> We are using McAfee at my new work as well, and one thing has me
    >> worried. When trying to deploy the new version 8 silently using the
    >> .msi file in the package one out of three or four instances there
    >> comes an error that it is not compatible with Win XP. I have not seen
    >> this error when installing from top to buttom starting to unwrap the
    >> .exe downloaded from mcafee though. But the other install method is in
    >> their documentation, and it is normally the way to deploy new
    >> programes in a windows server environment

    >
    > Really? I didn't have that problem at all - probably 30+ workstations on XP.
    > I agree about the silent install - it's certainly the way to go. I used
    > their installation creation software to customize my install package (dang,
    > I wish I could remember the name of that <g>) and used Novell's ZEN
    > functions to schedule it, and ran it silently. It knew where my update DATs
    > folder was, had schedules in place, and everything. I've spot checked the
    > workstations, and they seem to be updating right on schedule. It did take
    > some effort to get the auto updater to work on the server, but I think that
    > was my problem...not understanding some of the terms used.
    >
    > For the most part, we use the W2K server as a workstation. It has the server
    > software on it only because the timeclock software requires a database
    > program that doesn't run on Novell. Anyone in payroll can remotely run the
    > timeclock software now. Other than that, it's not used as a server. So the
    > McAfee is ran on the Netware system instead, and the W2K server only has the
    > McAfee client software on it. Maybe that's why I haven't had problems with
    > pushing the client software off to the workstations - Netware does it
    > instead of Windows Networking.


    We are still running the vers. 7 and I am not going to deploy vers. 8
    fullscale until I find out were that error comes from. The deployment
    is going to be made via w2003 AD. The installation software is called
    installation something, I can't remeber, but you can download it if
    you log in with your grant #. The most tricky part we have is that we
    still have win98 machines (money thing) on the network, and that
    means that we also has to have the vers. 4.5 of McAfee AV client.
    --
    jda^fx
     
    jda^fx, Mar 13, 2005
    #9
  10. Tom

    Toolman Tim Guest

    "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:13:46 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    > 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >
    >> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    >> news:n7ty5av9i10e$.oh7ncpaeaf28$...
    >>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:36:34 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >>>
    >>>> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >>>>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Tom" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128.86...
    >>>>>>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
    >>>>>>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Many thanks.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Tom
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K
    >>>>>> and
    >>>>>> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
    >>>>>> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have
    >>>>>> Internet
    >>>>>> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely,
    >>>>>> as
    >>>>>> far
    >>>>>> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
    >>>>>> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell
    >>>>>> Border
    >>>>>> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for
    >>>>>> McAfee
    >>>>>> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included,
    >>>>>> so
    >>>>>> for
    >>>>>> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
    >>>>>> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape
    >>>>>> backup
    >>>>>> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
    >>>>> antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
    >>>>> things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
    >>>>> take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
    >>>>> maintain centrally.
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, that sounds good then.
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't totally dislike the tape backup software (Brightstor Arcserve),
    >>>> but
    >>>> the management software is slow, and hard to configure sometimes (I
    >>>> have
    >>>> problems with restoring files from one server to a different one).
    >>>> Besides,
    >>>> it forces me to use UNC instead of drive letters. I'm not used to that.
    >>>> And
    >>>> the latest version exhibits memory fragmentation or something that
    >>>> causes
    >>>> my
    >>>> server to run low on memory after a week or two, forcing reboots much
    >>>> more
    >>>> frequently than I would prefer. Tech support has been fairly
    >>>> responsive,
    >>>> but
    >>>> they don't have an answer for the memory problem. If I didn't have 5 or
    >>>> 6
    >>>> years of archived data in their format, I probably would have switched
    >>>> to
    >>>> a
    >>>> different software package.
    >>>>
    >>>> McAfee, once set up, is also very low-maintenance, and has been 100%
    >>>> effective for us at work. The workstation component hasn't been a
    >>>> problem
    >>>> at
    >>>> all, unlike some of the McAfee 'retail' packages I've worked with.
    >>>
    >>> We are using McAfee at my new work as well, and one thing has me
    >>> worried. When trying to deploy the new version 8 silently using the
    >>> .msi file in the package one out of three or four instances there
    >>> comes an error that it is not compatible with Win XP. I have not seen
    >>> this error when installing from top to buttom starting to unwrap the
    >>> .exe downloaded from mcafee though. But the other install method is in
    >>> their documentation, and it is normally the way to deploy new
    >>> programes in a windows server environment

    >>
    >> Really? I didn't have that problem at all - probably 30+ workstations on
    >> XP.
    >> I agree about the silent install - it's certainly the way to go. I used
    >> their installation creation software to customize my install package
    >> (dang,
    >> I wish I could remember the name of that <g>) and used Novell's ZEN
    >> functions to schedule it, and ran it silently. It knew where my update
    >> DATs
    >> folder was, had schedules in place, and everything. I've spot checked the
    >> workstations, and they seem to be updating right on schedule. It did take
    >> some effort to get the auto updater to work on the server, but I think
    >> that
    >> was my problem...not understanding some of the terms used.
    >>
    >> For the most part, we use the W2K server as a workstation. It has the
    >> server
    >> software on it only because the timeclock software requires a database
    >> program that doesn't run on Novell. Anyone in payroll can remotely run
    >> the
    >> timeclock software now. Other than that, it's not used as a server. So
    >> the
    >> McAfee is ran on the Netware system instead, and the W2K server only has
    >> the
    >> McAfee client software on it. Maybe that's why I haven't had problems
    >> with
    >> pushing the client software off to the workstations - Netware does it
    >> instead of Windows Networking.

    >
    > We are still running the vers. 7 and I am not going to deploy vers. 8
    > fullscale until I find out were that error comes from. The deployment
    > is going to be made via w2003 AD. The installation software is called
    > installation something, I can't remeber, but you can download it if
    > you log in with your grant #. The most tricky part we have is that we
    > still have win98 machines (money thing) on the network, and that
    > means that we also has to have the vers. 4.5 of McAfee AV client.
    >

    Yup - we're in the same boat. But late this year I think all the W98
    workstations are going buh-bye <g>! The boss only lets me replace 5 or 6
    systems a year. Now I have about 8 to 10 computers in storage I need to
    clean and dump. (Never ends, does it?)
     
    Toolman Tim, Mar 13, 2005
    #10
  11. Tom

    jda^fx Guest

    On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:40:29 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    24hoursupport.helpdesk:

    > "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:13:46 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >>
    >>> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:n7ty5av9i10e$.oh7ncpaeaf28$...
    >>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:36:34 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >>>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:32 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >>>>>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Tom" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:Xns9617B16EEF000Myemailaddressnet@24.168.128.86...
    >>>>>>>> Any recommendations or suggestions as to Windows server-compatible
    >>>>>>>> antivirus and firewall programs would be most appreciated.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Many thanks.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Tom
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I have McAfee antivirus on my networks at the office - both the W2K
    >>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>> Netware servers. It automatically updates from the web, and posts the
    >>>>>>> updates to a local folder so the workstations that don't have
    >>>>>>> Internet
    >>>>>>> access get the updates as well. The updates have been quite timely,
    >>>>>>> as
    >>>>>>> far
    >>>>>>> as I can tell - several times a week in fact. I don't have/use/need a
    >>>>>>> firewall solution on the W2K server because it's behind the Novell
    >>>>>>> Border
    >>>>>>> Manager software on the Netware server. I bought a license option for
    >>>>>>> McAfee
    >>>>>>> for the servers and all workstations with 2 years updates included,
    >>>>>>> so
    >>>>>>> for
    >>>>>>> another 15 months, I don't even have to think about it much <g>!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> There are also network varieties of Norton, Computer Associates' AV
    >>>>>>> software, and a few others. As frustrated as I get with CA's tape
    >>>>>>> backup
    >>>>>>> software, I really don't think I want to see what their AV is like...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I don't know anything about the CA tape bakup software, but the CA
    >>>>>> antivirus is a product that is worth looking into. One of the good
    >>>>>> things (apart from being good at catching virus) is that it does not
    >>>>>> take many recources on workstations. And it is very easy to deploy and
    >>>>>> maintain centrally.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, that sounds good then.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't totally dislike the tape backup software (Brightstor Arcserve),
    >>>>> but
    >>>>> the management software is slow, and hard to configure sometimes (I
    >>>>> have
    >>>>> problems with restoring files from one server to a different one).
    >>>>> Besides,
    >>>>> it forces me to use UNC instead of drive letters. I'm not used to that.
    >>>>> And
    >>>>> the latest version exhibits memory fragmentation or something that
    >>>>> causes
    >>>>> my
    >>>>> server to run low on memory after a week or two, forcing reboots much
    >>>>> more
    >>>>> frequently than I would prefer. Tech support has been fairly
    >>>>> responsive,
    >>>>> but
    >>>>> they don't have an answer for the memory problem. If I didn't have 5 or
    >>>>> 6
    >>>>> years of archived data in their format, I probably would have switched
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> a
    >>>>> different software package.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> McAfee, once set up, is also very low-maintenance, and has been 100%
    >>>>> effective for us at work. The workstation component hasn't been a
    >>>>> problem
    >>>>> at
    >>>>> all, unlike some of the McAfee 'retail' packages I've worked with.
    >>>>
    >>>> We are using McAfee at my new work as well, and one thing has me
    >>>> worried. When trying to deploy the new version 8 silently using the
    >>>> .msi file in the package one out of three or four instances there
    >>>> comes an error that it is not compatible with Win XP. I have not seen
    >>>> this error when installing from top to buttom starting to unwrap the
    >>>> .exe downloaded from mcafee though. But the other install method is in
    >>>> their documentation, and it is normally the way to deploy new
    >>>> programes in a windows server environment
    >>>
    >>> Really? I didn't have that problem at all - probably 30+ workstations on
    >>> XP.
    >>> I agree about the silent install - it's certainly the way to go. I used
    >>> their installation creation software to customize my install package
    >>> (dang,
    >>> I wish I could remember the name of that <g>) and used Novell's ZEN
    >>> functions to schedule it, and ran it silently. It knew where my update
    >>> DATs
    >>> folder was, had schedules in place, and everything. I've spot checked the
    >>> workstations, and they seem to be updating right on schedule. It did take
    >>> some effort to get the auto updater to work on the server, but I think
    >>> that
    >>> was my problem...not understanding some of the terms used.
    >>>
    >>> For the most part, we use the W2K server as a workstation. It has the
    >>> server
    >>> software on it only because the timeclock software requires a database
    >>> program that doesn't run on Novell. Anyone in payroll can remotely run
    >>> the
    >>> timeclock software now. Other than that, it's not used as a server. So
    >>> the
    >>> McAfee is ran on the Netware system instead, and the W2K server only has
    >>> the
    >>> McAfee client software on it. Maybe that's why I haven't had problems
    >>> with
    >>> pushing the client software off to the workstations - Netware does it
    >>> instead of Windows Networking.

    >>
    >> We are still running the vers. 7 and I am not going to deploy vers. 8
    >> fullscale until I find out were that error comes from. The deployment
    >> is going to be made via w2003 AD. The installation software is called
    >> installation something, I can't remeber, but you can download it if
    >> you log in with your grant #. The most tricky part we have is that we
    >> still have win98 machines (money thing) on the network, and that
    >> means that we also has to have the vers. 4.5 of McAfee AV client.
    >>

    > Yup - we're in the same boat. But late this year I think all the W98
    > workstations are going buh-bye <g>! The boss only lets me replace 5 or 6
    > systems a year. Now I have about 8 to 10 computers in storage I need to
    > clean and dump. (Never ends, does it?)


    Doesn't seem that way. We have a plan that says 1/5 of all computers
    is to be renewed every year, and just this February all employees and
    8 of the students computers got XP. Now we are starting with the rest
    of the student comps (they have a bi room with a lot of comps in it),
    and some of are really old c**** But we have a good thing up our
    sleeves, exams are coming up, and if we had XP we could just have put
    policies on to prevent internet access (that is in the rules) now we
    have to diconnect a part of the school.
    --
    jda^fx
     
    jda^fx, Mar 13, 2005
    #11
  12. Tom

    Toolman Tim Guest

    "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    news:2g6idaijq7r9$...
    > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:40:29 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    > 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >
    >> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:13:46 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:


    <snipped>

    >>> The most tricky part we have is that we
    >>> still have win98 machines (money thing) on the network, and that
    >>> means that we also has to have the vers. 4.5 of McAfee AV client.
    >>>

    >> Yup - we're in the same boat. But late this year I think all the W98
    >> workstations are going buh-bye <g>! The boss only lets me replace 5 or 6
    >> systems a year. Now I have about 8 to 10 computers in storage I need to
    >> clean and dump. (Never ends, does it?)

    >
    > Doesn't seem that way. We have a plan that says 1/5 of all computers
    > is to be renewed every year, and just this February all employees and
    > 8 of the students computers got XP. Now we are starting with the rest
    > of the student comps (they have a bi room with a lot of comps in it),
    > and some of are really old c**** But we have a good thing up our
    > sleeves, exams are coming up, and if we had XP we could just have put
    > policies on to prevent internet access (that is in the rules) now we
    > have to diconnect a part of the school.
    >

    Heh - that's the best part of small networks with not much money...at some
    point, someone finally comes up with the necessary reason to force the
    upgrades <g>

    While we're a commercial outfit, there's not a high profit margin
    manufacturing wood mouldings. So the owners/officers are quite reluctant to
    spend money that they can't see immediate productivity increases from. But
    eventually, they have to give in. The last time I got a new server was
    because the boss had a new PDA and wanted to access the company email
    wirelessly. Well, our server software wouldn't do that, so to get upgraded
    software, we had to upgrade the server...way cool!
     
    Toolman Tim, Mar 13, 2005
    #12
  13. Tom

    jda^fx Guest

    On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:17:18 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    24hoursupport.helpdesk:

    > "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    > news:2g6idaijq7r9$...
    >> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:40:29 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >>
    >>> "jda^fx" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:13:46 -0800, Toolman Tim wrote in
    >>>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk:

    >
    > <snipped>
    >
    >>>> The most tricky part we have is that we
    >>>> still have win98 machines (money thing) on the network, and that
    >>>> means that we also has to have the vers. 4.5 of McAfee AV client.
    >>>>
    >>> Yup - we're in the same boat. But late this year I think all the W98
    >>> workstations are going buh-bye <g>! The boss only lets me replace 5 or 6
    >>> systems a year. Now I have about 8 to 10 computers in storage I need to
    >>> clean and dump. (Never ends, does it?)

    >>
    >> Doesn't seem that way. We have a plan that says 1/5 of all computers
    >> is to be renewed every year, and just this February all employees and
    >> 8 of the students computers got XP. Now we are starting with the rest
    >> of the student comps (they have a bi room with a lot of comps in it),
    >> and some of are really old c**** But we have a good thing up our
    >> sleeves, exams are coming up, and if we had XP we could just have put
    >> policies on to prevent internet access (that is in the rules) now we
    >> have to diconnect a part of the school.
    >>

    > Heh - that's the best part of small networks with not much money...at some
    > point, someone finally comes up with the necessary reason to force the
    > upgrades <g>
    >
    > While we're a commercial outfit, there's not a high profit margin
    > manufacturing wood mouldings. So the owners/officers are quite reluctant to
    > spend money that they can't see immediate productivity increases from. But
    > eventually, they have to give in. The last time I got a new server was
    > because the boss had a new PDA and wanted to access the company email
    > wirelessly. Well, our server software wouldn't do that, so to get upgraded
    > software, we had to upgrade the server...way cool!


    Yup. When the boss cannot do what he wants to do, thats when things
    start to happen.

    And the 2003 exchange server is pretty cool. The userinterface on the
    OWA client is actually good enough to be used for handling mail for
    more that just the cases where you could not have MS Outlook avilable.
    We have removed MS Outlook from a lot of the oldest machines to avoid
    win98's poor profile handling and to save money on upgrading to newer
    versions. And then we only have to instruct new at students in one
    interface that they can use both at school and at home. The newsgroup
    feature on it is kinda cool as well. If you have a group of users set
    up in an OU it takes 10-15 min. to make a newsgroup.
    --
    jda^fx
     
    jda^fx, Mar 13, 2005
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. joun

    A good firewall for a win2k3 server?

    joun, Sep 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    643
    Leythos
    Sep 27, 2004
  2. JustMe
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    806
    JustMe
    Jul 19, 2006
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    773
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,011
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Internet Highway Traveler
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,974
    Internet Highway Traveler
    Nov 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page