Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by stratoc, Apr 24, 2012.
Because it is better to prevent it than to try to clean it up afterwards.
This is a marketing strategy rather than a true fact-based argument, but I won't ellaborate on this because it's not related to the topic.
Microsoft Goes From Cellar to Stellar in New Antivirus Test
Thanks. I'm sure that some ppl won't want to read it
I would like to try running this with WSA but it would slow things down to much.
That's like saying airplanes are statistically the safest way to travel. Telling that to passengers who's airplane is about to crash...
#35, 36, 37, 38, 39, .......... =
Oh god what a ~Snip~ MSE is. Want to copy an image of some broken goods that i've photographed with my phone and MSE is taking so long to scan images in that folder i'll go ballistic. Freakin 2 minutes and then the whole system was pretty much frozen so that i couldn't do anything. Just because teh dumb thing needs 3 hour to scan 20 JPEG photos. Dafaq...
I ve also had some similar problem with MSE .... It sometimes locked explorer ... I ve presented the case to MS team and none were resolved.
It is true that MSE could lag your computer and even crash Windows File Explorer. Especially if the folder is full of program executables. It was even worse for folders in USB drives.
RejZoR, I thought you were not liking MSE and wouldn't even touch it? I guess I was wrong then.
No, i have to bear with this garbage at work where workstations have the Forefront thing installed (which is essentially corporate MSE). And i hate it because it's slow as a handicaped snail. Takes forever to load everything, decides to grind already slow HDD when i need to run work apps the most, takes decades to scan few bloody images taht i have to transfer to a PC from phone or digital camera aaaargh. It's so damn frustrating.
And yeah, no matter what system it was, a weak laptop, high end desktop, that crappy workstation at work, they all ran like crap with MSE installed. That's why i'm always like WHAT!?!?!?!?!!?!? when people say MSE is light and fast. It's just not. But then again the often confuse "simple interface" with actual lightness. It's slow as nothing i've ver seen. Also very confused by AV-Test results where MSE is like on par with everyone else where my experience tells a whole different story and we're not talking millisecond differences here, we are literally talking tens of seconds difference.
It s just simple....not fast....not light at resources(50-70 mb is not the best among AVs)....not light on system performance(copy/pasting,installing,running apps etc) and not effective enough.....It's just as other MS priducts(Media Player,Office,Utilities .....)
This has been a problem from the start. I wrote into the Defrag show - their response was to exclude that folder
I d asked similar question about a folder with multiple executable files and they told me to delete that kind of folder from your system....
This shows their support policy....." delete the problem istead of resolving it"
It's not even that it has this feature, it's that they've still not made it optional even though they estimate that the affected users are 'a minority of maybe 10 to 15% if that many'.
Microsoft Security Essentials 4.6.305.0
What it is showing is MSE is actually one of the better airplanes!
Don't see anyone able to refute the prevalence approach to signatures that Microsoft uses. Kaspersky also uses that formula to decide which signatures to program into it data base.
What these AV labs do is pick 5% of malware from malware family #1, 5% from malware family #2, and so on, to run it's tests with, except the prevalence in reality is 30% from malware family #1, 25% from malware family #2, etc.
Yes, but the fact is that Kaspersky and others uses a lot of advanced techniques to stop even not so prevalent malware. With Microsoft, if you are so unlucky to encounter one malware that is not in its restrict database, you are screwed. Security Essentials is good only if used together with ie smartscreen, but alone is one of the less effective antimalware out there, IMHO.
This is the crux of the matter. If Microsoft's approach is correct, then you should be very secure with their AV. I understand that AV-Comparatives was compensated by Microsoft for the analysis but they wouldn't release it if there were glaring problems with it.
It comes down to do you trust Microsoft's telemetry data and are a large representative sample of users running the "Maiicious Software Removal Tool" every month?
Come on RejZoR, don't be shy. It is okay to like MSE. (grin grin)
If I'm not being mistaken scanning the folder via context-menu scan before opening it may prevent the lag and/or crash that could happen.
I use it with Google Chrome, but if you check a hundred or so sites on PhishTank, etc., there's not much difference between IE and Chrome.
Here's the infection rate per 1000 machines:
Kaspersky - 0.001209
Avira - 0.001980
Panda - 0.002253
MSE - 0.003369
ESET - 0.006411
AVG - 0.007327
Bitdefender - 0.012304
Q360 - 0.013025
Avast - 0.014447
Baidu - 0.018903
All pretty microscopic.
I know, this is all a mind blowing thing to many of you, but I don't see any of the other AV companies refuting it, nor any of you, either.
Also keep in mind, Microsoft is the only AV maker that does not sell a paid AV, all the rest do.
1-In my opinion AV-Comparatives prevalence test is in conflict with all other tests(Real World,File Detection, AV-test.org, VB100) where MSE has been at the bottom of the table.
2- I ve not found any paid product made by Qihoo
3-Microsoft Forefront is their paid security suite.
You are a scholar, sir, but on prevalence, that stands on it's on. Those AV labs don't have the resources to compile a proper list of prevalence - therefore, their test samples are not a true representation of what is going around every day.
Q360 - no paid version needed as it helps the Great Firewall block Facebook, Twitter, Google, Bing, etc.
Have other vendors run such tests too. Some will try to cheat, but at least there'd be a bigger sample size and all the manipulations could balance out.