Please give us an MMC interface for Business Protection

[2000cs]

          I was extremely disappointed when I finally tried the new management console for Avast Business Protection and discovered that, like so many other applications today, it sports a web browser-based interface. The first time we were lucky, but the second time we had nothing but trouble getting installed, and even now it is flaky and unreliable.

          What I find offensive about browser-based interfaces is that they solve the developer's problems of making something cheap and fast and one other problem that we do NOT have, namely, "access anywhere." We have never had a problem with accessing our servers via Remote Desktop. It doesn't matter if we can access the management console from another computer via HTTP. Browser-based interfaces create problems and do NOT help us to be more productive in any way, shape, manner, or form. They are also slow, clunky, and awkward. We currently spend an inordinate amount of time troubleshooting antivirus software (it's probably #2 on the list of nuisances behind backup software). Most of the trouble has come from these browser-based "solutions."

          Could we at least have a choice about what interface we install? I would take an MMC-based solution any day. Browser-based interfaces are cleraly and always inferior to MMC-based solutions. I would even pay a premium for an MMC add-on if that is what it takes to get one, but at least give me a choice. Or at least give me a choice of IIS or Apache so I don't have to worry about messing up other IIS-based web sites (such as SBS's Remote Web Workplace) on a server. I would always take Apache over IIS for something like an antivirus mamagement console. Trend Micro at least has the smarts to offer that option (though its interface is still clunky and awkward, even with Apache).

[.: Mac :.]

I Think you are over reacting to this. A MMC based solution makes sense if you have thousands of clients to manage but for the audience this product is targeted at, Small and Mid Size Business, the web interface is perfect. Many small businesses do not have an in-house IT Team and often the person in charge of IT is doing it as a secondary responsibility and usually has very limited technical knowledge. Most likely do not even know what a MMC console is.

For now if you require a more traditional interface the older ADNM is still available for download but beware support is provided for version 4.x clients only through the end of 2012. By that time im sure the Business Protection product interface will have improved and you can re-evaluate its use then. In fact I have several Customers taking this approach and continuing to use ADNM for the time being.

That said, if you have any specific technical issues with the product please post them on here so that we can try to assist you.

Thank You

[2000cs]

          I am not overreacting at all. I have yet to see a browser-based interface that was even half as good as an MMC-based interface, or even just a plain old program written in a traditional programming language that doesn't have any fancy prerequisites before it can be installed. A slow, clunky, awkward interface can hardly be called "perfect." ADNM can hardly be considered a solution if it is being phased out. Avast can work on the browser interface all it wants, but it isn't the particular implementation that is the problem, it is the whole concept of broswer-based interfaces that is deficient. Even ten years of work won't fix the problems that are inherent in browser-based interfaces. A tricycle is still a tricycle even if it has mag wheels and a V-8 engine and rally stripes.

          My years of miserable experiences with browser-based interfaces point to only one solution-- get rid of them. I will be looking for antivirus software that uses traditional programming methods to produce a quality product. Hopefully someone actually produces such a thing instead of just going with the crowd of slow browser-based interfaces.

          Finally, I have no respect for anything that requires that Silverlight be installed on my server. Silverlight is most noteworthy for its progress meters-- a sure sign that it is slow as molasses.

[spi]

in my opinion, web base is very good

what avast! team must do is improving the console like how to manage the each service by grouping and have a good period report with N host infected or N virus detected.

actually what  customers need is feature on ADNM 4.8 but avast! must have new feature for compete with the others antivirus products

[giogio]

in my opinion, web base is very good

what avast! team must do is improving the console like how to manage the each service by grouping and have a good period report with N host infected or N virus detected.

actually what  customers need is feature on ADNM 4.8 but avast! must have new feature for compete with the others antivirus products

+1

[wpn]

I prefer an MMC or native coded program above a webinterface too.

But.. with the cloud hammering and pounding on the door the OS's itself are getting more and more cloudpreppared too, so instead of kicking down the webinterfaces we need to embrace them and improve where possible...

tho if there would be a (portable) native coded console, i would rather use that for the speed of the silverlight interface...

i share also the statement about having to have silverlight installed on the server, its not software that i would put on my server.
Silverlight is a clientside program, so there is a point of improvement there (for later releases)

[igor]

I'm not very familiar with the BP console internals, so it's just my guess, but I'd say the silverlight UI is quite a big amount work - so this "point of improvement for later releases" would actually mean throwing it away and starting from scratch, i.e. very unlikely to happen.

[bitworld]

I'm also not happy with a web frontend.

Especialy, when the default configuration of the webbrowser on the server isn't able to display the frontend. (Silverlight is not enabled in restricted mode of IE)
So I need to lower the security to be able to configure a security product. (Kind of ironic)

The simplest way would be to let the silverlight frontend run in a separate application. On the setup, the user can specify, if he wants to use IIS or only a native application on the server.

Live could be that simple.

[hillsinc]

I must agree with 2000cs.  I am not a fan of the various web interfaces that vendors try to use.  Inevitably they create problems as the vendor commonly assumes that nothing else is using IIS.