For someone like my mother when I switch her to MSE in June when NOD32 expires the no prompts the better. She won't know what to do anyway.
Thank god for that! Digressing slightly, I got the Bing Desktop update before I installed MSE 4. I hid the Bing update (best thing for it IMO ). I haven't done a full scan yet, but MSE, although it can take its time, is faster than some other heavier AVs on some computers. I recently installed MSE on a computer owned by a relative. The original suite was taking forever to full scan. I'm still a bit ambivalent about the new GUI, it's a bit retro maybe ...
I agree to a point. If there was no such thing as false positives then it would be great. But that isn't possible.
Luckily these are quite rare on MSE. This was one of the primary reasons I installed MSE over other light AVs in the first place.
I did just install it at work since the budget does not cover anything else. I like the interface update over version 2, but it does look like something that was released in the '90s. I guess I'll see how it works out.
I agree, Microsoft should definitely have an option to set it. Although it became a habit of mine to manually update after start-up and before I load my browser.
This is a concern I had with MSE when it was first released - the updates were infrequent and not installing immediately. I would also like to know how this latest version is in that regard. Are there any changes regarding self-protection, such as optional password or captcha challenge? I don't wish to reignite the debate about why I think it would be a good idea. I'm just asking if there's been any change.
No self protection, It can be terminated in a mouse click. What I dont get is why are the definition updates in windows update as optional and not updated and applied automatic.
Either way, MSE will tell you if you haven't been updated for a couple of days. Being updated every twenty seconds doesn't really make much sense in reality. No updates can be that efficacious. Once a day is more than enough.
It does actually, especially for an AV that relies on signatures and heuristics, with rudimentary cloud protection. But if you're using it as one of multiple protection layers, then yes it doesn't make much sense.
You don't need updates every 24 seconds but having them at 24 hour intervals is not cool either. avast!'s default 4 hour interval is reasonable enough. I'd even go with 6 hours. But 24 in these days, not enough even for free products.
I have to agree with Daveski17, once a day is plenty for an update. I've had MSE since it came out and have never been infected (nor have I with other AVs). How often do you get infected or your AV block a virus?
With a 24 hour time window in year 2012, you have plenty of chances. If this was not a problem, why do you think everyone went the cloud way or an actual hourly updating system?
I'll quote Stefan's opinion on the matter: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2041605&postcount=5 So, does MSE have a cloud backend which will replace the need for database updates every "few" hours? If yes, then updating the client once a day instead of several times a day is acceptable. avast! free does have streaming signatures (amongst several other protection layers), after all.
Microsoft Active Protection Service, essentiallty SpyNet finally renamed, is the "cloud backend" so-to-speak. Problem is implementation. They have the capability and capacity to build the largest cloud anti-malware with their telemetry, but they foolishly rely too much on signatures still. For example, undetermined, unknown files that are likely malware (because if MS doesn't know about it...well then hint hint, nudge nudge!) are allowed to run without any mitigations/options to block it...and only a prompt asking the user to submit the file is shown. That's insecure and total hogwash imo, and probably the #1 reason I stopped using MSE above anything else. They just need a better way of implementing zero-day protection...more like they need to implement it PERIOD.
Do you people rely SOLELY on MSE for computer security/protection or, do you use it as part of a MULTI-LAYERED securuty approach? If it's the former, then my condolences. For people who frequently visit computer security forums and whine and brag about their knowledge about computer software and good computer practices, you should know that relying only on one security solution to do all the computer "chores" and/or "housekeeping" is unwise. MSE might not be the best AV overall out there but, it meets the requirements that the average Joe is looking for on an AV nowadays. [A] It runs very light on CPU and or I/O; It has an extremely LOW False Positives [FPs] rate; [C] It has very decent detection rate [not stellar but still very good]; [D] Works on the background and you barely notice it's there. Now, speaking about update frequency and "self-protection". I think that a 24-hour update interval is very reasonable unless...your computer gets several virus infections every couple of hours. And then, that's what your OTHER protection layers are for. Aren't they? [Sandboxie, AppGuard, Faronics A-E, Light Virtualization software such as Shadow Defender, a good hard-disk BACKUP, disabling Java Script when not needed, keeping your plug-ins updated {Adobe Flash Player, Adobe Reader}, keeping Windows updated, etc.] "Self-Protection" is just...relative. I have seen AVs with a claimed "strong" self-protection succumbing to Rootkit ZeroAccess, TDSS, Trojan Ransom, Fake AVs. So, the fact that a given AV has that feature, doesn't make your PC more secure unless you have more layers of protection. Carlos
My system is only whats in sig. On the family PC there is no such thing as safe surfing, the kids and mom are all over the place on the www,yet it stays clean,but I would have to credit that to a layered approach which is mse 4,malwarebytes real time,Appguard in lock down mode on a standard user account.
