Microsoft Security Essentials

I have it on my desktop and 2 laptops and throughout this entire period no slowdowns at all on scanning. Of course I dont run all the other apps that a lot of you do in conjunction with my security products. But to me , MSE is proving to be as good, if not better then all paid AVs. Throw in a program like Sandboxie with it and Online Armors free firewall and I would bet you, there isnt a suite that can touch it either.

 

I agree with trjam.MSE has Microsoft's own advantage.Not one vendor can understand Windows System better than Microsoft.Microsoft know the secrets of Windows and make the most of those secrets.If Microsoft pay more attention to MSE,MSE will be the best,I believe.

 

I doubt MSE will get any better or will get any major upgrades soon. Only major bugs will get fixed. I don't like to repeat myself but I'm 100% convinced that Microsoft released MSE to show the way...to set a higher level of quality standard. Their goal is to make the windows platform more secure...they have made a more secure OS, they react faster to all the security holes...I believe that they did and will do what they can. Now they want better security applications for their windows platform. That's why they decided to shake a bit the market.

 

It is definitely in their interest for several reasons to do this. I think it is great for the consumer as long as the product can hold it's weight and stand up to scrutiny.

 

Very True.

Ice

 

Agreed with trjam that MSE is working well but don't think it is better than the paid AV's. It's free for sure and is a good replacement for those who don't want to pay for their AV's. Also agreed that MSE should not be used on its own, add a program such as Sandboxie would further strengthen your system security is prudent.

Like all AV softwares, MSE would get better over time and use.

 

I think your argument would be quite appropriate in relation to Vista x64 and Win7 x64 on account of the kernel patch guard which is giving a lot of security applications more than a headache.

 

No you're not the only one.

 

I wouldn't say just this, as it's MS they have more responsibility to use the API to the fullest instead of well, let's call them "workarounds", that some vendors use that break with patches, or cause incompatibilities with other software. It's more than likely these "workarounds" used by other vendors are what cause MSE's weirdness on certain systems with multiple security software.

 

ditto, on 2 computers it is all I run. Caught 2 trojans on my sons computer yesterday from Limewire crap he was downloading.

I know Stefan, you told me so.

 

It's running on my home laptop and desktop machines as of last night. It was getting close to time for a re-up on my N.I.S. license so the timing was great, I'm less and less inclined to keep dropping quarters in the slot for big suites now that Microsoft is finally (a decade overdue IMO) stepping to the plate with some basic, acceptable-quality antivirus and firewall functionality in Windows. That said, I'm also running the Prevx free thing on those computers just in case.

Microsoft seem to have belatedly realized that as a practical matter having nigh-foolproof, simple default protections (i.e. Windows Firewall, MSE, anti-phishing in IE) that will stop even 80-90% of the malicious stuff coming down the line can--on a population basis of millions--have a huge, huge impact on the overall quality of life for Internet-connected users. All the FUD and downplaying from the big suite vendors is beside the point, the object isn't to give NIS2010-quality protection to every Windows user for free.

The point is that the world would be better off with 90% of users having even a mediocre security setup and 10% having real (paid-for) protection than it is with 10% having real-good protection and the 90% having nada.

 

Not everyone agrees with Nortons assumption of MSE being a middle of the road AV.

 

Well i just installed it as well, and the GUI looks good...and it does not need complicated configuration like some of the other AV's i tried.

 

I fully expect to conclude that it is quite effective, once I've had it protecting my system long enough to draw any conclusion. My point was that even stipulating (as they say on the lawyer shows) that you get better protection from a quarter-gigabyte suite of Norton, et. al. there is still a great need for a Microsoft-supplied, free "default" security solution.

 

I understand Brent. You might want to read this page about detection about mid-way down.

here

 

I don't like: to use MSE I must run MicrosoftSpynet, and I must enable the WU, that I don't run never, and I enable only at the Patch Day, choosing the Custom Update. Sorry, but I'll renounce to MSE.

 

Totally understandable. You have to make the choice that is best for you, and I respect that. Also MSE is not the find-all end-all for products either. It is a great product but will not be able to replace all for everyone. It will allow some to reduce what they use I think.

 

Microsoft is so far the _only_ company I've seen that will give you the option to reduce the amount of data sent to them. Every other AV company does this by default with no choice to you, go around reading some EULA's. Basic SpyNet barely sends anything, which is why I always use advanced.

Also, like stated several times before, you do not need Windows Updates left on to get updates, so both your points aren't really valid.

 

Ooh, I hadn't read this, thanks!

 

I like this statement:

 

OK, that's a little on the nose innit? I think our own trjam is the author of that piece. Come clean, now!

 

What do you mean? I quoted trjam, which has a link to a PC world article in his quote. Then I quoted a sentence from the PC world article.

 

I've been using MSE since the beta was first released. Test machines were a workstation running Windows 7 64 bit and Prevx, a laptop running XP SP3 with SAS and a workstation running Vista 32 bit and SAS.

Like many of you here, I like to stress test and MSE has caught everything I tossed at it, so SAS and Prevx stays quiet. I've experienced zero compatibility problems and have been so impressed that I recently converted three large offices to MSE while still in beta.

Memory use for me has been a consistent 56 to 63 MB, regardless of what software or file directories I have open. My guess is that perhaps some of the people reporting much lower memory use may be running Vista or 7 and may not be ticking the button to "show processes for all users" (?). The user interface service is what runs at 4 to 5 MB.

Regarding memory use spiking at boot time, sorry, but I consider that to be normal for many anti virus solutions. Heck, it was not that long ago that SAS used to do that for me. Ditto for Vipre, which was notorious for doing it. Even though memory use is higher than what was reported on my machines for Avast, Avira, Eset, etc., in practical use it runs "light" for me.

I can understand how some users might prefer suites, while others prefer to "roll their own". I, for one, do not want a suite with SPAM filters as I prefer what I get in Thunderbird or WLM. Scanning of inbound AND outbound mail? I'm also not interested.

We've got plenty of options to choose from. I recall many times that I felt the anti virus I was trying was a second classed citizen on my machines as things just were not right. At least MS knows how to hook MSE into their OS. Look how long it took for many solutions to work with Vista (and we all know why.)

I want SpyNET and I set my controls to advanced so MSE can check the servers if it finds something acting tacky on my machines. MSE always seems to pull it's updates before Windows Update does it's daily thing. I do not fault them for wanting WU enabled. Wilders users are capabable of managing their own machines. What about the zillions of users who never tweak their machine from day one and think it is fine to use the anti virus trial that was installed back in 2006 with little or no updates?

 

Im unable to run MSE. It takes long time to load the startmenu. Long bootup? scan. Not to mention browsing folders with a lot of .exe's. I wished this would replace Windows Defender but no luck i guess....