Having used MSE for about 2 years on my portable/Win 7 system, with no infections, I included it on my most recent desktop purchase. Again, no problems after almost one year. I finally abandoned my NOD32 on my old XP system, in favor of MSE, realizing that XP and IE8 lack certain security features of Win 7/IE9. NOD32 never failed me, but it never found anything beyond the odd FP. Neither does MSE! (touch wood). And I'm quite confident with MSE 4.0 now on all my systems. I don't really care how long its scans take. I value its ease of use and light footprint, and low FP rates. Its detection rates may not be top dog, but frankly in recent years I question the relative importance of an AV in the hierarchy of layered defenses combined with safe surfing. (I also use MBAM Pro and Winpatrol Plus, and a hardware firewall. These are modest one-time costs, compared to the annual subscription for a paid AV on multiple PCSs). It took me a long time to arrive at this conclusion. I follow the tests at AV-Comparatives and AV-Test, and I'll be interested to see how 4.0 compares. But as someone said, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". Well, I've been malware-free for over a decade, using a variety of paid and free AVs (and layered security). And the only major differences I see, are in the cost and the "grief factor". MSE scores well in both areas, at least in my circumstances. YMMV.
IMO I hate when a new pc,laptop or desktop comes with a free trial period that pops up in your face for registration for third party AV or suite.I think it's fine of suggestions of third party choice's as a option, but I think MSE should have always been a default for protection just like windows firewall,and why not it's microsofts os and a license to use it. I know not everyone will agree with this, especially third party vendors and still people will use what they want and will uninstall what came offered with the system if it's not there choice.Same goes for mse but it least with mse people are not held for ransom money for protection or else after the trial.
I am switching the other two Windows 7 machines over to MSE when the antivirus expires in June and December.
MSE is targeting the Normal Day to Day user the One that usually won't use and antivirus till someone insist on them having it it's a very Good Job from Microsoft and the Better Job that it's by default in Win 8 and i think it will be in all of the Other Versions but i hope to make this Have an advanced Option For advanced users Like better GUI for the Firewall or something i don't want it to be like the Old windows defender
That's an interesting point. Although I think that MS will just have one basic version. In this way, the AV industry as a whole probably won't see it so much as a huge threat to them. AFAIK the 'old Defender' was just anti-malware/spyware & was designed to be used alongside an AV program. I miss it a bit as it had some good tools with it. However: 'Windows Defender features spyware scanning capabilities like other free spyware-scanning products available on the market, and includes a number of real-time security agents that monitor several common areas of Windows for changes which may be caused by spyware. It also includes the ability to easily remove ActiveX applications that are installed. Also integrated is support for Microsoft SpyNet network that allows users to report to Microsoft what they consider to be spyware, and what applications and device drivers they allow to be installed on their system. In Windows 8, functionality has increased to offer virus protection as well, offering the same functionality as Microsoft Security Essentials.' ~ Wikipedia Wikipedia
For PC, it's easy because I always do a custom build. But for laptop, it makes me want to punch the manufacturers in the face, so much crapware. lol They will be sued to death if they make it to good and it's free and integrated with Windows, lol.
Actually giving MSE to every computer is imo a good thing. All in the interest of user security. If it can be as easily disabled as Windows Defender i'm perfectly fine with it. Anyone complaining over Microsoft because of this is just plain stupid. Unless it is Symantec, McAfee or Trend Micro. They'll most probably complain.
Some stuff thats usefull it's ok preloaded but have not found any yet.It really dont have to be custom built but just the option of windows OS and drivers only would be nice.I hear you though,it is irratating.I guess its a commom practice for retail off the shelf stuff.
Heck, don't laugh... it's actually pretty serious, isn't it? I mean, by the same token, they would sue malware authors, if they stop creating malware? We're seeing malware emerging for the Apple's system. Will security vendors sue malware authors, should they decide not go after Apple's system users? (Granted, that wont happen; they won't decide that... but... let's suppose they would.) Basically, what I am asking is: Must we - users in general - be insecure, so that others can make lots of $ out of it? It sounds like that, doesn't it? But, if security vendors wouldn't sue malware authors, then why would they sue Microsoft? Isn't the purpose to use a secure system? What if Microsoft actually made it to kill any malware to install, in the first place? Would they sue Microsoft? So, if Microsoft wants to end with malware for Windows (at least lol), they can't, because others won't make a business out of malware? It's all smoke and mirrors. (Sure, Protected Mode,etc... etc... but not to much, so they won't kill other people's business... for the sake of $ at the expenses of malware and ignorant users.)
Actually I thought it would be rather funny if a major AV distributor sued Microsoft because MSE was too good & it was taking money from them. Although I really do think that many manufacturers of AVs don't mind MSE being freeware & won't care about Defender being bundled with Win 8 so much, precisely because MSE isn't very sophisticated. In this way, those who crave huge bloated suites with loads of whistles, bells, knobs & dials to twiddle with, will purchase the ones they want. Those of us who don't care that MSE doesn't have massive firewall interfaces, bloated whitelists, self-defence modules, intergalactic translators, faster-than-light drives, & cappuccino making capabilities will quite happily carry on using it. The plain fact of the matter is that malware writers won't stop because it is too lucrative. They aren't individuals sitting behind a laptop these days but professional gangs or collaborations. Even if you could find them, suing them wouldn't stop them. The Mac malware event horizon was an inevitability. Most Mac users that I know never used any kind of malware defence program. If I was a Mac user, I would at least have run one of the several AVs designed for Mac. At the very least I would have used some form of on-demand scanner. Maybe all those Mac users will sue Apple for not making them immune to viruses LOL. I'm not sure I understand the question. I think it would be a 'bundling' issue. Think Opera ASA & their whinging to the EU. I'm not sure what Microsoft's reasoning was to make MSE free. I don't think it originally started the project with being freeware in mind. My guess is that it was politically (with a small 'p') motivated & they had a bad reputation after the great Vista fiasco. Furthermore, MSE checks to see if you have a genuine copy of Windows, so it may have been an attempt to influence people to buy MS rather than use a crack. It could even be for tax concessions. All I can say is, that despite MSE's minor faults, it is a great AV for me. It's light, performs well & is easy to use. Some may need to update their AVs every other nanosecond & have it flagging them every time a Google car runs over a sheep or something, but I like MSE as it is. I also think that MS have its updating cycle right. Many find it incomprehensible. I don't know why, the updates are optional until you go too many days without one. Anyway, there are three every twenty-four hours. Any more than that & ideally you should be living in a Terminator franchise movie trying to avoid SkyNet's HKs or something.
Ah, sorry if I created confusion; my questions were rethorical questions. But, I was just thinking out loud, based on skudo12 comment, saying Microsoft would be sued. And, now actually going more seriously, and since you mentioned Opera, if Microsoft did make of MSE what many would like it to be - have "nice" features -, then you can bet that security vendors would start complaining about it, and eventually even try and sue Microsoft. Hence, the reason of one of the rethorical questions I previously made, and one you didn't quite understand. Resuming, you can bet these security vendors would fight Microsoft, should MSE be loaded whistles, bells, knobs & dials to twiddle with. Which pretty much sums up what I "questioned" before. We shouldn't have to have a not-so-safe system, so that others can make a business out of it. Question: Couldn't Microsoft have a "smarter" firewall? Yes. Why don't they? Microsoft could actually make it happen, and force software vendors to send them the rules their applications will need, so that they can add them (not before checking them) to Windows firewall, which would now be a "smart" firewall... But, no... this would be... trouble... Hence, once more we all got to be using a not-so-safe system. But, even without all that, we got no need for this third-party apps... I just wish millions of people out there would smarten up. But then, we'd be the ones being sued. LOL
does mse autoupdate definitions..or we have to check the update and if any setting to tighten the product..or just default.
Regarding definitions... not sure. But, if nothing changed, then they will arrive to Windows Update as Optional, and only after 24 hours they will be installed, I believe? I truly don't recall. Well, you may want to tweak the malware defintions updates interval, either by tweaking the registry or scheduling a task with Windows Task Scheduler, by using MSE's command line utility MpCmdRun.exe. It has been talked about before in this forum; if you search for it, you'll find maybe a couple of threads about it.
It depends on what you mean by 'nice' features. What to many may be nice, to some (probably me), would be bloaty pointlessness. Well, I don't want to appear obtuse, but I'm still not getting it. Yeah, MSE is the Marshall Amplifier of AVs. Marshall's have volume, treble, bass, gain & standby. All you need then is an electric guitar & a curly lead & you have rock'n'roll; simplicity itself. If I want tons of pointless features I can use an AV suite. I'm not sure what you mean by a not-so-safe system. I have a layered approach to security, ranging from browser hardening & on-demand scanners, GUID filters (SpywareBlaster) to plain old common sense. Because it would be bloaty & superfluous? Or a 'bloat' firewall? Without going down the sandboxing route, I doubt I could get much safer in the real world. I doubt that I'd sue MS if a virus or malware got past it.
MSE 4 is pretty good for a program that is free, and even better then some of the heavy hitters in the AV market.
@ Daveski17 This is not about being bloated vs non-bloated, let malware pass vs not let it pass. It's rather about Microsoft not being able to actually go a step further. They will always be charged with anti-market practice crap. Yes, this would also include their Microsoft Security Essentials. It wouldn't be left out, you can be sure of that. They (security vendors) don't give much importance to it, because they know MSE is/will be seen as a basic security solution, and therefore "we" need a more robust solution. But, you can bet the scenario would be different, if it wasn't seen as a "basic" security solution. They wouldn't complain about MSE, but rather because it comes as part of Windows 8. What I meant before with my "question" is that, regardless of what Microsoft could implement, and if it would actually stop all malware, this would put security vendors out of business. I also asked, as a joke, if they would sue malware authors, should they decide no longer create malware. Which would be stupid; hence, also stupid to sue Microsoft, if MSE actually made it to kill every other AV. lol Basically, what I said, based on what skudo12 mentioned, is that, we shouldn't have to have an insecure system, so that others can make a business out of it. But, we never know... I would never imagine to see the day IE wouldn't be part of Windows, and it happened... in Europe anyway. lol -edit- I'm not sure what you mean by a not-so-safe system. I have a layered approach to security, ranging from browser hardening & on-demand scanners, GUID filters (SpywareBlaster) to plain old common sense. That's the whole point, actually. Browser hardening is great, common sense is great... The rest... how would they all react if all of a sudden they had no place anymore? Maybe they would try and go develop a office suite and complain Office is too good. lol
I'm not sure what you mean by 'a step further'. Any more adding stuff to MSE would defeat its purpose as a light AV. What's with this 'we' business LOL? I see MSE as a perfectly fine security solution. What's 'basic' to some is 'not bloaty crap' to others. I'll never use an AV suite again. There's no point. Yes, I got that bit. If everyone generated their own electricity, power companies would be out of business. It's not likely to happen though is it? Every system is insecure though. Haven't you seen Jurassic Park? Yes, but in the real world the hypothetical is just that. MS Office will never be that good anyway LOL!
Just a joke . I just remember some event regarding Internet Explorer and Microsoft.(or maybe I'm dreaming? lol) EDIT: Even though it's a joke, here is an old news -https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9195079/Rival_calls_foul_over_Microsoft_s_delivering_Security_Essentials_via_Windows_Update
