I've come to the conclusion that...

Hmmm ... I've been running MSE on two computers for at least six months now (nearly ten on the laptop) & it seems relatively fine. It's still light compared to most suites & I think MSE 2 has HIPS. I've heard about MSE's inability to detect fake AVs & other rumours but I never know what to make of them. When I ran *Bullguard people would ask me what it was & why wasn't I running a well known AV. When I used Norton (the only AV I have ever used that let any malware onto my system) people would tell me how crap it was. Then when I changed to McAfee I was actually trolled on some 'security' sites just for admitting to using it. Now I have changed to MSE it is now about as fashionable as McAfee & apparently now as bad! I just can't win.

Maybe I should save up for a Macbook.



*BitDefender engine & Outpost firewall

 

My son used MSE and got an infection. Windows 7 64bit. I put CIS on his laptop and no problems since. He didn't want to pay for AV so thats the direction I went. mt daughter already uses CIS and I just put it on my mother in-laws laptop. Everyone wants free AV. Me ,I use N360 for my system.

 

hmm.. so many drwabacks mentioned

anyways , my main dislike for MSE was it slowed my system . I heard that it was fast but for my PC , it wasnt... eset worked very fast on same PC

 

It's a lot faster than Norton or McAfee was though for me. There again my laptop is a tad RAM underpowered. My 64 bit desktop has only ever had MSE on it. The 64 bit MSE seems like greased lightning to me.

I am not sure whether it is worth converting to avast! or something yet though. AV Comparatives give MSE a very high rating ('Advanced +' I believe).

 

I recently cleaned my friends computer of a rogue security program that was preventing him from doing anything. I managed to clean it in Safe Mode, but yeah MSE failed to prevent it. I know no Anti-virus will detect everything, But MSE isn't all what it's cracked up to be tbh. It doesn't update itself as often as some others either. I'm not trying to turn this into a Vs debate, but if you look at Norton that will update itself again within minutes.

 

I think for every anecdote indicating that MSE was at fault there would be at least as many, or more indicating that folks have had no infections while using MSE.

My wife and I have both been using MSE for quite a while (having switched from Avast and Avira respectively) and neither of us has had an issue.
She surfs quite a bit and I moderate a couple of forums which requires me to put in long hours on the net with a lot of surfing.. Nary a peep.

Considering the vast number of users "out there", these anecdotes are barely a ripple on the surface of the bucket.

It would be interesting, however, to see some real world data (if it were available) showing just how often a given A/V was able to interdict a given threat or failed to do so.

Unfortunately, most of these discussions, while interesting, fail to prove anything at all. At least that's my take.

No disrespect intended toward anyone or any product.

 

Oh ... I'll never use Norton again ...

 

Yes, I think it is a fair statistical conclusion.

I suppose if MSE does have any vulnerabilities MS are almost certainly aware of this & taking steps to remedy it/them.

Yes, I doubt that they are statistically relevant. When I used McAfee many people had similar anecdotes. To be honest, I never had any infections when using McAfee (unlike Norton), I had little or no problems with it & the only reason I really ditched it was because it was so heavy.

Yes, I would like to see some real data to back these claims up. At least you can then make an informed choice about an AV.

Maybe I'll hold off on ordering that MacBook ...

... Well .... I have heard that Norton has improved somewhat since I last used it.

 

I'm not trying to discredit MSE, I just don't like it and that's my opinion

I think for most AV's these days to really work you need a decent firewall or some sort of behavioral detection/defense+firewall, and MSE does not have this and Win firewall is not going to cut it.

This is not the crux of the issue though, the real issue is the behavior of the person behind the PC, not the virus per se. It seems to me allot of people on here look at things to black and white.
I have to look at things through the eyes of the people I help, you have to really get in their head to discern what type of defense best suits them. I learned long ago there is no such thing as a one size fits all AV.

While it is true that almost any AV one uses these days will do a good job, the days of the stand alone AV+Malware are gone and have been for some time, at least for some PC users.

The bigger issue is that MS is marketing MSE as the all you need AV to the masses who think the internet nothing more than an all you can eat buffet of links full of fun.

To think people are educated to the threats on the internet these days is wrong. Just look at the marketing of MSE- http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security_essentials/ProductInformation.aspx.

Sounds good doesn't it, so joe blow thinks: "well I've got my free AV so it's O.K. to go use Limewire because MSE is watching".

You can tell the average PC user till your blue not to click that link, or not to use cracked software etc,etc but when it comes down to it, there isn't much that is going to stand up to the abuse allot people put their PC through.

It would be nice to have an AV program that adapts to the users needs adding and taking away defenses as needed.

 

Manual update periodically.