For the most part my experience has been very positive. Especially on the management side.
Here's a few observations:
It would be nice if it were more clear either in the McAfee Agent Monitor or the EEPC System Status window what the EEPC agent was doing. It's comforting in the current version to see it add/remove users, sync token data etc....
It would also be nice if the inherited groups/users were included when viewing EEPC users for a specific device in the ePO console. Currently it only displays users/groups associated directly to the device. Combining this with the inability to see users being added/removed on the device itself it's hard to tell if a change to user/group association has taken affect.
Has the initial encryption been restricted more on resource use? It seems like the initial encryption takes quite a bit longer than the existing version. This is nice if you're encrypting while the user continues to work. But not so nice if the tech has the device in hand and is trying to complete the process as quickly as possible. I can live with it either way. But if we're going for wishes, it would be nice if encryption resource usage were configurable in policy.
I don't care for the way the default theme separates the username and password entry. Functionally it's fine...this one's purely subjective.
Hopefully theme creation will be further developed in the release version. We have a custom theme that includes more than just the background. The documentation also mentions browsing to a theme package. But I can't find anything that talks about what format/structure the package should be in.
Overall, for the stuff that really matters I've been pretty impressed.
you mean the new version of 5, or the whole new product 6?
This KB article is the old password change question. It's not so much a bug as a difference of opinion. I've asked for the KB article to be revised accordingly.
No, it is not just "a difference of opinion". McAfee KB is right saying:
"A feature modification request has been opened to have changes made so this will work as expected."
"Work as expected" is a majority opinion and should be honored.
No, it is not a difference of opinion, it's a bug. Or, possibly, a foolish design descision. Either way, it is a very bad practice that reduces the security of the data and needs to be corrected sooner rather than later.
Well, I don't care really care what you call it, but undocumented behaviour makes it hard to support. As I've pointed out before in our environment the majority of staff move between PCs routinely within the working week. The helpdesk have no way of knowing what advice to give to a user who's unable to log in to a PC, so calls take longer to resolve than necessary and we get more than necessary. Since introducing Safeboot, it accounts for 30% of all calls to the Helpdesk, the vast majority of which are problems logging in.
Of the Safeboot calls we get, around 35% are repeated within five working days because the user hits another Safeboot issue. I supect that addressing this "difference of opinion" would make a huge difference to the repeat call rate, reduce the average time to resolve and avoid hair loss amongst the helpdesk staff.
I'm happy to discuss this difference of opinion on a conference call if I haven't persuaded you that it matters. The least I would expect was that McAfee would treat it seriously and, while I recognize that this is not a formal support channel and you guys have probably been very busy developing the shiny new version, this really does give Safeboot a very bad name amongst users and IT organizations.
So, to repeat, if this is fixed in a new 5.x release then I for one will be very happy, but when I checked through release notes for the last few versions, there's no mention of any change. If it's not planned to be addressed in version 5 or version 6, could you let me know? That way, we can evaluate whether this is the right product for us, as the cost of supporting it is currently too high.
Just a thought on the password issue you all are talking about.... I have never had this problem with any version and i have been using this product since 4.2
The only thing i can think of is I have always used the feature to remember x ammount of old passwords. So if your password was 'yankee' and PC1 changed that to 'rebel' then even if PC2 tried to change it back to 'yankee' the database would reject that as a valid password change because its listed as one of the users x number of old passwords.
Maybe this isnt how it works and maybe i havent had the problem because i have never worked anywhere that had one user using more than one laptop...
But maybe its worth a shot.
I have some ePO experience and have used both v6 Beta versions. I am pleased overall with the design and functionality of this product. It ties really well with the User Based Polices feature of ePO 4.5, and I like how you can assign users to the machines by choosing them right from the synchronized copy of LDAP. I really like how AutoDomain is integrated into this version (Add local domain users).
The theme options are better in Beta 2 but I wish that there was an integrated theme creator. It would be great if it was in the format as the v5 theme creator. It sometimes takes forever to activate EEPC and start the encryption process on the machine. I am manually forcing check new policies, enforce policies, collect and send props, performing agent wakeup calls, ect., and still it does not start right away.
Looking foward to the production release...tick, tock. I am also eager to learn the upgrade/ migration details from v5 to v6 but I hear that will not exist until v6 release 2.
I head from our sales representative yesterday that EEPC v6 will be released on 11/16/2009. Can someone acknowledge this?