I've seen RAM usage around 60-70 MB RAM. It may sound as a lot if your PC was manufactured in 2005 or earlier, coming with either 256MB or 512MB of RAM only. However, nowadays with new computer being packed with 2GB, 4GB or even 8GB or 16GB of RAM this shouldn't be much of an issue. I however would worry more about CPU and/or I/O because this is what normally bogs down computers. And, as far as I can see, usage of this is not that high either. Carlos
Like I said, once a day updates should be good enough, especially if you have a layered approach to security. Plus some AV cloud support is good. My approach/philosophy to security is simplicity. I like to use a straightforward, light, capable AV with a decent detection rate & some browser hardening. I accentuate this with SpywareBlaster (on my 32 bit notebook) & a good on-demand scanner/remover (MBAM). I've only ever been *infected once; from a flash ad in a Russian website. I was running SeaMonkey without NoScript. I haven't made the same mistake since. *This was before MSE was even released & I was running another AV.
I am suspicious of mse..and do not believe it is really doing anything and do believe it is just another way of ms playing big brother..Has anyone ever really seen mse go into action? I dumped it..slower than slow also but thats typical microsoft
MSE is a real AV and I have seen it in action. I find it quick and effective without draining resources. Judging by the posts you have made in the forum today you are suspicious of most programs
Quick? It's sluggish as hell even on Core i7 system. Just open a folder full of apps and slow it crunch in slow motion. Don't even think of having an EXE installer from lets say GOG in there. Stupid and slow design.
Unfortunately this hasn't been solved in MSE4 and it's the only reason that keeps me from using MSE. Opening a folder full of executables or even saving an average sized .exe file from the web slows down my computer (Core i5 with an SSD) I like everything about MSE but it bothers me that it's considered light just because of CPU/RAM usage. This should have been solved a long time ago but maybe it's designed to be like this and they don't wanna solve it?
Then exclude the folder full of executables? Well the only reason I can see of having a folder full of executables is that you are collecting / backing up installers of your program. (It's even better to zip them to conserve space). BTW, how many executables to noticed the slow down? I have a folder of at least 10 (software I'm wanting to try) and haven't noticed it.
Why should I exclude anything? I shouldn't be obliged to keep track of every folder I store stuff just because the antivirus is at fault. I could even live with the slowdown when opening a folder, but not everytime I install a program or download an .exe on my browser. More than 5 executables are enough to clogg down the system. I'm not being picky but the problem is that this happens everytime after the computer reboots. I don't remember an antivirus in a long time that doesn't keep a record of your files, so it doesn't scan them all the time you open the folder. I don't understand exactly the thoroughs of AVs but I don't expect this kind of behavior nowadays. It's really fast otherwise and I do install it in all computers except mine
Well that's your decision. One thing's for sure though, I don't experience this folder full of executable slow down, executable downloading slow down, and I download a lot of software. (from trustworthy sources ). The only slow in MSE is it's full scan ( although I still didn't test the full scan since I installed MSE 4 beta).
Ofc Not wanting to extend this conversation a lot more but try googling for MSE and slow opening of folders/executables. For example: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1541342
I have just tested MSE with realtime turned off & it does appear to drastically speed-up the icons appearing in folders of executables. This mainly affects my notebook though. It is a bit annoying, but I suppose nothing's perfect, & at the end of the day, MSE's advantages outweigh its disadvantages. I'm pretty sure that other AVs I've used have had the same problem.
Yes this folder thing does bother me some only because I need to go into my folders quite frequently. It seems to happen only on the first time through. If I go back to the same folder it's much faster. Does this version have some sort of protection for itself. I have seen the older release get hosed by ransomware. Other than these 2 points I do like the design. It's simple to use and stable. I'm sure each release will get better. Ice
I don't think it has a self protection. I've read a statement from one of Microsoft's developer, they don't believe in self protection. I don't remember the reason but AFAIK, it's a reasonable one.
That is a matter of opinion though isn't it? Well, you've complained about the 'crappy' update cycle, I think its update cycle is fine. In fact, it was one of the deciding factors for me downloading MSE onto my notebook in the first place. My last AV updated every time I opened the lid. If it coincided with any other updates, particular MS updates, it could cause problems. There is no reason in the known universe to update an AV more than once a day. Furthermore, I would hardly call MSE sluggish. I admit its full scan can take some time (depending on the PC itself), but the quick scan is even faster on #4. Even the .exe file problem isn't a huge deal really (for me anyway). Everything is a trade-off. MSE is light, effective & easy to use. Ideal for notebooks & the like. It has some negative points for some. I personally am fine with its lack of self-protection, as this is another trade-off for lightness. If you don't want to use MSE you don't have to. Either way, you can't knock the price!
No offense, but an opinion of one person (specially one who is close minded like you) means nothing. Yep, some noticed the slowdown, but does that make a software just "sucks"? You have only look at the negative side of the product. MSE is a free, EFFECTIVE, anti-virus without nags and ads that is backed by Microsoft. EDIT: If I say avast! sucks, it probably does
I dont have MSE 2 installed, neither I tried MSE 4, but bing desktop is there as optional update here on win 7 64. I think they are pushing BD irrespective of MSE installed or not i.e independent optional update.
Bing Search will only appear if you enable to show additional software updates and releases in Windows Update. MSE4 has nothing to do with it...
I dont get why people feel that one update a day is enough. other vendors provide hourly or almosthourly updates as well as a cloud componant is because it is needed to keep up with the number of malware ITW.
In the time MSE gets an update, the malware will become inactive anyway because it would already serve its purpose... the reason why everyone rush for the shortest response time possible.
Because in the real world it just isn't realistic. For example*, I manually update MBAM daily as I use the freeware version as an on-demand scanner. I will also check sometimes before I perform an on-demand scan of a specific file. I think that this is fine for what is essentially an on-demand dedicated anti-malware scanner (as opposed to a complete anti-virus program). I can't see why anyone would want an hourly update for a fully-fledged anti-virus program. It would render my notebook useless. There is a reason why MSE has a reputation for having a very low false-positive rate. One of these reasons is that they almost certainly give themselves ample time to check the update signatures thoroughly. How many individual people on planet Earth are infected every hour of every day they are online? If I manually update MSE on my notebook, I often find that it will update in the morning. On an evening if I open it up & check it will often update new definitions. MS are very probably updating more than once in 24 hours anyway. Updating malware definitions hourly seems just like overkill to me & belongs in a Vernor Vinge short story or something IMO. LOL *Note to moderation, I am using this example as an analogy, not as an attempt to start an argument of comparison.
