AVG Good for Networks? 2

[Zych]

Hey All,

I am thinking of selling AVG to one of my customers. I have heard to many problems that Norton is slowing down systems way too much. I also never liked McAfee. It is probably better now but it used to be worse than a virus. I have been using the free version of AVG on my home system for awhile now and I like it. I do have one major complaint which may or may not be a problem with the paid version. That problem is that it seems that the update servers are filled to the capacity. Sometimes my system will not update but if I try later in the day manually it works OK. Does the paid version have this same problem? I don't want to receive calls from the customer saying it will not update. I am hoping that the paid version uses different servers than the free one.

- Zych

 

[kmcferrin]

Aquias, you forgot the biggest reason not to use two clients at once: cost. Why pay double?

If you purchase a solid antivirus product then it should catch pretty much everything and there shouldn't be a need for two different clients on a single PC. I agree that running client protection isn't enough to secure your network, but I prefer the layered approach to doubling up on AV clients on workstations. By layered of course I mean having a gateway/firewall device that scans inbound traffic for viruses, having scanning on your SMTP gateway and email server, file and print servers, and workstations. The advantage of having a layered approach like this is that you are blocking multiple infection vectors. Putting two different AV clients on a PC doesn't do that.

 

[LloydSev]

Agreed kmcferrin, the layered approach works more effectively then a dual AV approach.

Computer/Network Technician
CCNA

 

[aquias]

Kmcferrin,

A very good point that I forgot. And very nicely put; on a different way to protect your network effectively.