Microsoft Security Essentials-What sets it apart?

I struggled with this topic last night, laying in bed as to whether or not to post this, but decided to. All I ask is we keep this discussion civil. (Not going A versus B)

-With the vast amount of free antiviruses out there that offer free protection, (Avast, Avira, Panda, Etc). They all seem to lack components that you need a paid version for. (Firewalls, protection from spam emails, hacker protection).

-It seems like although Microsoft Security Essentials (at least to me) has the most complete protection without the need for extra components, though you could certainly pay for them if you wanted to. My question is what sets Microsoft Security Essentials apart so they do not need to add the extras like the products above.

Matt

 

I honestly don't think anything sets it apart. I would be hesitant to use any AV(free or paid) that does not have a behavior blocker, unless I pair with with some layered protection.

 

it is a great product made by a large company with vast resources. Need I say more.

It is my second choice after trying the new beta version. When it comes out of beta and people see how much of a difference there is, end of story.

 

Now Jeff, don't tell me that you are using Dr Web.
Regards,
Jerry

 

How is it different? Performance, detection, features, etc... I have tried the beta twice, and was not impressed either time.

 

I think MSE does have some kind of behavior blocker which works in the background without popups What can be added to MSE apart from sandboxie,shadowdefender etc. for layered protection I dont know if any HIPs or behavior blockers work nicely with MSE .

 

Oh wow, maybe you are right. If it does, it sure is not very effective against zero day stuff.

 

But it ain't less effective than it's direct competitors in my opinion (maybe Panda cloud is though, and AVG could be when they include IDP; but the others + a lot of paid aren't).

 

Even though this review is old , the Moderator in the forum says 'MSE includes behaviorial monitoring'.
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/msescan/thread/5faa6fff-41d7-41c4-9077-6b5b4ab338d3
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/msescan/thread/47657cd1-886f-4ffd-be53-08ace808f009

 

Thanks. I have tested MSE a few times, and I have never seen it come into play. I have never seen Avasts or PCAVs do anything either.

I have not tested the MSE beta in probably two weeks. Have they released a new beta since then?

 

Well , it is the same as other products mentioned above (avast,AVG , Panda) . MSE doesn't have firewall , anti-spam , link scanner , extras . This makes it no different than the others . They don't add extra features because they already added them (a.k.a Microsoft has a firewall , Microsoft has anti-spam , Microsoft has anti-phishing , etc...)

Microsoft Security Essentials is a security product and it relies strictly on other Microsoft technologies . It relies on your Windows firewall (built-in XP,Vista,7) . It relies on Microsoft update to make sure you are completely patched-updated. It relies on the phishing filter and Smart Screen integrated in Internet Explorer . As for anti-spam - such is built-in their Windows Live Mail (mail client) , same in their web-based mail (Windows Live Hotmail).
Microsoft have parental controls (both in Internet Explorer and built-in Vista/7) .

So , it has pretty much everything. Just because you have Windows , you are Microsoft client , who may decide to rely on MS technologies.

It is pure , that is it .

 

The beta is v 2.0.375.0 ( no new version upgrades that i know) they did upgrade the engine some days back (17th sep).

 

That is indeed true, blaming Microsoft for offering only one layer - antivirus - is not true. All the others are included (the above mentioned, but also UAC, DEP, SEHOP, System Restore and Backup functions etc.), but normal pc users don't experience it that way. They believe AVG and Symantec when those companies state that users need an Internet Security suite to have maximum protection, and that MSE is useless for that reason.

 

Read up on the soon to be released next version. Merging it more with the firewall, browser, etc etc...it's quite a "next step" in the evolution of the product. BETA is avail of this new release.

To answer the OPs question...since the original BETA came out, I've found what sets it apart:
*No nags...no prompts to upgrade to the pro version, no advertisement popups, it just quietly does its job in the background
*No need to register the product, and/or renew it
*Very simple and easy to use interface, great for the freebie jobs I do for "home users". When it detects something, it has a very easy hand holding dialog box that walks them through the rest of the process.

 

The beta MSE is real nice.The only thing that bugs me is the icon turning red for few sec. sometimes .

 

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/4009/1097290-i_see_what_you_did_there_super.jpg

 

I had the same problem after bootup. The MSE icon would stay red in so far that the Windows Security alert window would pop up and state that "no antivirus software is running". Then, eventually the MSE does turn green. Wondering why such a long delay. I am in XP Pro SP3 and wondering if that is normal for MSE and XP Pro.

 

I think because it's a beta product . When it goes final, Microsoft will have fixed it by then hopefully For me it only happens sometimes.

 

That pretty much covers it,I'd just add unmatched knowledge of the platform that it's running on to the mix.

 

Seriously ??!!

 

For this reason, I am surprised the program is not lighter (in all facets).

 

Qak,

Only because I've been around here a while and have seen how some threads can go off topic. That's all I meant.

 

Don't get 3GUSER going by even slightly criticising his beloved Norton by hinting the parent company misleads people!

 

When I "love" a given software (OMG!) I am objective when I do so. I would prefer if you refrain from using such words .

 

It is light. It is time for people to quit associating ram usage with just how a product works. I have seen some with very little ram usage that felt like cement bricks. Dr Web uses about 150k on this machine but is just as light as Avast which uses about 12k. Go figure.