Beta for Next Version of Microsoft Security Essentials Now Available

Yes, I can understand that. Going from them two to any AV should present a noticeable difference. Also, for me it doesn't matter which version and trust me, I've tried everyone including betas because I would like to make it work. The only way I can tolerate it is if I add way more exclusions than should be done. Even then it still has one quirk, the tray icon always pops up red upon any boot up. I know it's weird but it's true for me and this older laptop. With the ability to rollback or restore an image, I've tried nearly most security apps and there are three that I can't run and the symptoms are all the same, DW, MBAM and MSE.

 

I downloaded Flock twice, the first was the normal one & the second was 'country specific' (UK in my case) & both times it gave me loads of problems. Just trying to close it down was a major headache!

Yet Firefox & SeaMonkey which are both Gecko engined have always ran perfectly well.

I had problems with Spybot S&D as well & people told me it is virtually perfection. In my opinion Spybot isn't far off malware itself.

I don't even want to think about the problems I had with Norton.

 

And still you take pains to quote this. Amazing.

Not sure in what decade you last tried Norton products. The 2010 line is amazing in terms of performance. Perhaps the lightest paid traditional AV.

 

Same here. May not bother some people but matters a lot to me.

 

There's no need to be sarcastic, not everyone is a software engineer. I went to university, I was just unfamiliar with the term.

Again, I'm sure you're happy with Satantec's Norton, it was a consistent pain in the arse for me!

I used it from mid 2008 - mid 2009 & it was from my ISP (British Telecom). I'll never use it again. I have had no problems with McAfee or MSE. My only gripe with McAfee is that it is about 200 MB as opposed to the 13.4 MB of MSE. My degree is not in mathematics but even I can figure that one out!

 

MSE is way more than 13meg. You must not have been counting all the processes.

 

Also it depends on the OS used and the amount of memory installed;

here on Vista with 3GB RAM; 3 processes taking up the following memory- Private bytes;

MsMpEng.exe, - 60276K
NisSrv.exe,- 4484K
msseces.exe - 4292K

But memory usage, unless you have an old machine, is not the best indicator of AV performance. CPU time usage and I/O Reads and Writes are much more important criteria as the main performance impact is the AV scanning every single read/write to the slowest part of your computer, the hard drive.

In this regard. MSE seems quite heavy but still appears to have little effect on performance on this machine.

 

I had performance issues with 1.0 , but with 2.0 beta I can't really feel it running.
It's lighter than anything I've tried so far.

 

Maybe so, but most of the time someone reports memory use for MSE that low, they are missing the main process.

 

No argument there

 

I was just referring to what it says in the control panel as opposed to what it said for McAfee.

Either way, with the exception of the Panda Cloud Free, it is the lightest AV I have ever used. It has drastically altered the performance on my laptop.

 

Based on "feel", or benchmarks?

 

Just what my eyes tell me. Maybe other AVs are more efficient but my last two AVs (over a period of around 18 months) were Norton & McAfee. I tried Panda for a day & quickly realised it has a problem with false-positives, which is a bit of a shame because it was very light. Maybe they'll fix the bugs one day. It has definite potential, I'm not the only person to have had false-positives with it.

I don't even want to talk about Norton, Satantec may well have improved it but I will never download it again. I'd had enough of Norton & was just about to change to Avast! or AVG when my ISP changed to McAfee. I know the 'Big Mac' is universally loathed but the only problem I had with it was its size. I only have a Gig of RAM to play with. Computers with only twice that running at the same speed as my laptop seem to handle McAfee relatively well.

I'm pretty pleased with MSE, I'd gotten so used to a sluggish computer that I thought it was normal. It gets the big from me.

 

Re: MSE V1.0.1963.0 out

" The Redmond company revealed that it is planning to deliver new Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) and Forefront Client Security (FCS) releases in mid-August 2010, which will feature a new antimalware engine at their core.

The move is planned for approximately a week from now, and it is part of the natural evolution process for the two security offerings."
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Micr...ls-to-Get-New-Antimalware-Engine-151588.shtml

 

This weeks Microsoft updates are causing some problems for me (VISTA).MSE beta"s boot time has increased (it's slower)..the icon is turning red for five seconds then turning green...IE 8 is slow,sluggish and has crashed twice within half an hour ...am i the only one facing these problems

 

After installing 17 Microsoft updates, I am not seeing any of these problems on a Vista laptop; just MSE and WF running in real-time.

 

Thank you . I am going to cleanup,defrag and see how it goes. I did a flash update too so i will check it out

 

I've had intermittent issues with MSE not starting @ boot up. Not every time but enough to raise my curiosity.

 

Is that with the Beta MSE, if you don't mind me asking?

 

Yes, the beta. That seems to be the only issue I've seen so far. Big issue though.

 

Let's hope they fix this for the release final.

 

I just can't stand how both beta and stable take some time before their tray icons turn green at boot. And this is with no other realtime security app running and a pretty minimal list of apps that run at boot time.

 

Same here. I even tried using a fresh install image with nothing else on board. For me it makes no difference, it's the same on XP and Win 7 boot. I might be able to overlook the tray icon but the high cpu is a killer and yes it's high. I don't need any process explorer etc.. to know it either. These laptop fans only race up for two things, hard disk and cpu. Additional proof is the extremely slow navigation. I've said it before, I'm happy for those who have it running with little to no resource usage. It's just not gonna happen for me.

 

Hi:
pabrate, did you scan with hitman pro? Because after my issues with linux mint 9 over reboot I went back to windows 7 and I had scanned my new clean pc with all those suites like comodo, a-squared, and others and all showed clean pc with no false positives or any warnings. Now since you are getting warning with those you may have bugs that you think your pc is clean. I have never experienced false positives with comodo and a-squared, eventhough I install and download a lot of stuff. So I fail to see how you getting that many FPs with all those AVs. I guess from my personal experience I never had false positives with those suites.

 

Get Avast and avoid all the fuss. It is as plain and simple as that.