Microsoft Security Essentials

Good Evening ! Tried MSE not really impressed or unimpressed. It's a average stop gap solution for an economically minded individual. I appreciated the non cluttered minimalist Gui. Tried the quick scan nothing detected. Tried the thorough scan,have to admit it took far too long, again nothing detected. Compared to Avast 4.8 it simply at this stage can't compare. Until Windows 7 arrives I'll stick with Vipre. In summation hats off to Microsoft, a decent gesture for the masses. Sincerely...Securon

 

i believe this is the whole point of MSE, not tryin to compete with the big boys, but...something better than nothing

 

I'm not saying you don't think I'm right, but you clearly don't understand, this is an advantage it has over other AV's, it doesn't need to be the latest signatures for you to detect new threats, it uses DSS to detect them. Therefor, Microsoft have the flexibility of knocking back the update schedule to a longer period of time.

The feeling I got from your post was that you think it was a disadvantage or bad in some way, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Here is another nice one
http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhhD-TsBbBchHO5NWEPRqJ-KdKgZUw

 

well its running fine on my system....i am using with another free product-Outpost FW and both seem to gel well....
There are very obvious concerns about its detection-rate and preventive capabilities....
But the link posted by Ronjor above seems assuring..........lets see how microsoft develops it further......

 

unistall any other real time security software you have in this pc then install mse, defragment the hard disk and then scan with mse

 

Does anyone know how often does MSE check for definition updates?
It seems weird that so far i always had to update myself, because signatures were already 1 day old. When i checked, it installed new definitions.
It seems to me like it's checking only every 24 hours or something. Thats kinda lame considering most of antiviruses check for signatures every hour or for example every 4 hours (avast! free).

 

I thought this was a problem also. It does update every 24hrs. Sometimes, it updates twice in the same day. But this works differently in that when checking a process or file, I believe the sequence is definitions, heuristics and then a connection is made to their servers if somethings seems suspicious. The only other AV I would trust for realtime is the one you like.

Ice

 

Cube, that would make total sense. Now even I understand it. MS should cut and paste your response for the front page of MSE. Well most of it at least.

 

Well,

It may be the way my son's rig is configured and loaded with aps, but

* it uses about 25 secs cpu time until system is ready
* reads only 170MB of data, writes are negligible

After operational mode (looking at executable starts and downloads/mail)
- startup of large applications hits 3% cpu usage at the most, WHILE
- total CPU time stays at 25 secs (so it is just a blimp)

- triggering the traditional Windows Defender Agents (I think it had , keeps
CPU spikes under 1% and adds nothing to ttal CPU time
- MSE has a simplified GUI, so it shuld have same agents as WD, but you
can not configure them.


Compared to other AV's does it uses a lot of CPU during boot time, it needs less disk I/O (an important 'feel or system crispiness' factor) and uses minimal CPU while in operation with no spykes (no 'lag' feel during operation).

For a freebie, just used as add-on to UAC (smart with Norton's UAC tool) and SRP (with PGS) and ThreatFire for x64 (not a native x64 applicaton) it is good enough (and great on the Price/CPU load ratio).

Regards Kees

Regards Kees

 

From Microsoft

 

Symantec are really going all out to discredit MSE,which,in itself makes my opinion of the latter higher.Nice to see that their FUD isn't going unanswered though.

http://community.norton.com/t5/Nort...s-Aren-t-Just-for-TV-Anymore/ba-p/155531#A374

 

Oh I love these partial scope debates. Just pick something out of the equation and you proof you are right.

NORTON vs MSE = a full fledged versus a basic AV

Of all the points they could have taken succesfull shots at MSE, Norton choose the worst: MSE lacks a reputation feature

Call me stupid, but IE8 has one of the best reputation features available.

Of course it is not in MSE, you silly guys from Norton, it is a free feature of Internet Explorer

 

yes, I have to admit that any positive feelings I had for Norton are now gone. If MSE sucks like they say, why are they even commenting on it. It wont take long before consumers find this out. Or could it be, it doesnt suck.

 

It's so transparent that MSE has those folks at Symantec seriously twitching with all these snide potshots they're taking.I just hope that most people won't fall for this shameless dirt throwing.

 

Interesting that Symantec had someone test a version of MSE that never saw the light of day, other than a branch leaked build 1.0.2140.0. That alone discredits the entire test and results.

 

Someone said it best, I forget who, but what MSE will do is force vendors to make a better paid product and what is wrong with that. I dont see Kaspersky taking shots, and I know they WILL build a better product to compete. I dont see smaller vendors that have the most to lose doing it.

Nope, just Norton who for so many years could not even make a dependable product. Well, just when you show you have some character, you stick your foot in your a$$. Some just never learn.

 

As for Windows,MSE VS Norton = Parents versus Alien .

 

Just saw these results from AV-Test.org, testing MSE this week. It detected 98.4% of malware (out of a sample size of ~535,000). I guess this means Symantec is wrong.

Story from PC Advisor.

 

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback but I think Symantec chose the wrong set of responses. There's one tactic that's easy to make work and one that's tough and they definitely took the tough one.

The easy route is to do what most of the other security vendors seem to be doing. You say "It's better than nothing and kudos to Microsoft for offering something to those [by implication cheapskates] who aren't buying any antivirus software. But of course our paid solution is much more comprehensive".

The hard route is convincing the public that Microsoft's free offering is complete garbage by going on and on and on comparing it to your own $70/year subscription service. At worst you sound all shrill and defensive (which is what Symantec so far comes perilously close to IMO) and at best people say "Well jeepers, I sure as heck hope your super expensive Cadillac product does more than Microsoft's. Theirs is free, what do you expect". Sort of a lose-lose tactic.

 

From the same article:

"In a follow-up test of adware and spyware detection - Security Essentials also includes anti-spyware scanning - Microsoft's software spotted 12,935 out of 14,222 samples, for a 90.9% accuracy rate."

 

Sounds like something I would say. But common sense says, build a superior paid product and users, companies will follow. There really is no need to bash any security vendor as we are all in this together.

Ice

 

Maybe microsoft decides to make better and more secure systems finally... because of the popularity of the mac and linux. The true now is that a full updated xp sp3 or 7 is now more secure than ever add now to this mse and a router and you have a very secure system.... in the year 2010 finally windows is secure for smart people... because if you are stupid and you ranning unknown .exes or open unknown emails....
and you surf in the bad side you are never fully protected....
(in my tests mse is better to prevent and clean a malware than other free antimalwares and most of the pay ones)

 

to be honest if nortons trash was free, id still never ever use it.

the only good bit of software of theirs i use on a daily basis in work is : SymNRT

norton removal tool