Is all in one solution GOOD or BAD

[ByTeWrangler]

Greeting's

Okay I'm sure everyone is going to have a different view on this one and thats why I want to know everyone's view on this one.

With entry of Microsoft in Antivirus and Anti-spyware "business" many companies having high percent of market share are trying to get more of the "pie".


Now most of you must know that Microsoft is offering "Windows Live OneCare" which has 'everything" a home user needs to protect his PC. Here are some of the package offering's

* Protection Plus, with its antivirus and antispyware scanners and managed, two-way firewall, helps protect your computer from viruses, worms, Trojan horses, hackers, and other threats. It runs continuously in the background, but you can scan individual files and folders for viruses on demand simply by right-clicking them. You can even scan attachments you receive via Windows Live Messenger or MSN Messenger.
* Performance Plus regularly defragments your hard disk, removes any unnecessary files that can clog your PC, and helps make sure important security updates from Microsoft are installed efficiently and on time.
* Backup and Restore regularly copies your important files and settings to CD, DVD, or external hard disk.
* Instant Support provides online help anytime you need it, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

For more information please visit : http://www.windowsonecare.com/prodinfo/default.aspx


Now,

Microsoft describes OneCare Live as a "just take care of it for me" service for consumers.

and here is one more

Ryan Hamlin said the following "Our Windows customers told us that they didn't have the time, or in some cases the expertise, to keep up with the protection and maintenance tasks required to keep their PCs running well"

So Microsoft is not just planning to make entry into Anti-virus but also in firewall and backup software (indirectly)

Following their trail Symantec (currently holing 54% market share) and McAfee (currently holding 19% of market share, they are the closest competators to Symantec) have announced launch of new products just like Norton 360 (previously known as genesis) (get more information here : http://www.symantec.com/about/news/r...id=20060531_01).

Hence its clear that almost all major company will try to sell thier upcoming versions as all-in-one solution.

Now after giving out all the information necessary here is my question :

Do you think its best to have a complete security software (solution) which takes care of everything (ALL IN ONE)

or

is it best to choose from different companies (best of breed).

[qwertyman66]

I just voted best of breed because it seems to make more sense to have several different apps doing different things. If one of them goes down, then you will still have the others working. Compared to an all in one package, where if one thing goes down, you lose the lot. The unfortunate downside to this is memory usage; more apps will probably use more memory than a single app.

[bagggi]

i would go with qwertymann66,

as one should always have scanners dedicated to ckeck for what ever they are designed for and not the lot.

well....some of the scanners do work in the background and get active if they feel something is out of place

[576869746568617]

Personally, I'd have to go with best of breed. One thing that I don't like about the "all-in-one" and "just take care of it for me" is the false sense of security such a product can foster to admins and management that are not very security savvy. I'd rather have an antivirus product that I know from experience is reliable. The same for any security application. If they come from different vendors, so be it. If I have to patch manually, so be it. Automation is great, but If I have to trade security for convienence, I choose security.

Just my 2 cents.

[phunction]

I also go for best of breed.
I doubt if a program has so many function, it will do it's job very good.
I like more to install 5 good programs then 1inall decent programs.
I also agree with querty, that if one goes down, you have the other 4
with oneInAll everything could be down.

-phunction

[.:front2back:.]

Well these days i prefer to use the all in one type packages, only because it's easier and less time consuming if you can install the one software that will do it all, where as if you use many software to do different things then you have to spend time configuring etc the different apps up.

I for one do not have the time nor resources to do that at the cafe, i have found that it is heck of a lot easier to just use the one software do a quick custom config and move to the next machine, where as when i was using numerous programs to do the different things, i was having to spend longer at each machine..

Thus i'm sure that bigger company's with more resources and staff would be better of doing the opposite.

So i chose the All In One solution..

cheers
f2B

[spamdies]

I have to go with diversity. "A jack of all trades, master of none" just doesnt cut it for me.

[nihil]

This is an interesting question.

I can remember when both Microsoft and IBM had antivirus products.............. they dropped out of it in favour of McAfee and Norton. Obviously, the market has blossomed, and Gates is regretting that error of judgement

From an administrative viewpoint the "one stop shop" is attractive in terms of licensing, updating and the rest. However, it is not so good from a security angle as it presents a single target.

I am also rather concerned at how "bloated" these solutions have become; how they hog resources, and the number of conflicts that arise.

On the positive side, they are integrated within themselves, and represent a lower TCO than independent solutions.

[Aspman]

From an administrative viewpoint the "one stop shop" is attractive in terms of licensing, updating and the rest. However, it is not so good from a security angle as it presents a single target.

True, multiple vendors to some extent could increase you defense in depth.

BUT...

Also consider that multiple solution from a single vendor will (should) be made to work together so will not introduce the same risk of incmpatability that the best of breed options might.

And every different piece of software you introduce into a network carries additional risks just by it's presence. The more stuff you have, the greater the risk of a vulnerability from that stuff.

Nihils mention of licencing is probably the ultimate point in business for purchasing software.

If it can be bought from the same supplier, possibly under the same licencing and support, probably with a discount for taking another product, probably all products are integrated and guarenteed to work together.
All of that probably outweighs the benefits from defense in depth.

[nihil]

I guess you need to look at the "market" side of things as well?

From an OEM (Dell, IBM, HP) side of things, dealing with Microsoft for an integrated "bundle" of software would probably make sound economic sense.

Also, we need to consider the type of "home user"?

"Granny" would probably be better off with the integrated package that updates itself. The impoverished IT student would probably prefer to use freeware from a variety of sources?

From a small OEM viewpoint, I think that it would be attractive as well, as it would save us time and allow more competitive pricing?