PCMag,s review of Microsoft Security Essentials

PcMag = Norton

 

@Dan from Symantec:

maybe so
How about 1 man 1 lone voice ...
http://remove-malware.com/antimalwa...ernet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/
http://remove-malware.com/videos/norton-internet-security-2010-review/
Identifies at least one real enduser pitfall and poor implementation

Does Symantec listen or watch or..Just bask in the positives... ?
Fix on the way?
BTW, stop ripping out files I dont want ripped out..

 

Hmm... PC Mag says MSE detection stinks, but seriously has anyone any idea of the sample set used here ??
AV-Test threw 545,3444 at MSE and it detected 536,535. Including 90% in Spyware and 100% in rootkits. Lets not forget that AV-Test.org is a member of AMTSO, unlike PC Mag (which is self-promoted AV test authority). Hence AV-Test follows standardized procedure/methods to evaluate anti-malware effectiveness and IMO a better and impartial judge.

With regard to feature set, MSE does the job it was intended to do and at a very good price. And not juggling other *features*. You can easily obtain the addons of suite using multiple free apps. Free editions of Online Armor, SiteAdvisor,WoT,SpamFighter, K9 etc. more than suffice. The only advantage *insert your favorite suite here* have is convenience & support.

I think this PC World article sums it all up and remains neutral in its judgment (unlike PCMag).
http://www.pcworld.com/article/172958/independent_tester_security_essentials_very_good.html

Pros:

Cons:

And then the media avalanche:

 

I don't understand why can't you see the difference in the reviews and jump immediately against PCMag simply because your favourite product got a lower mark .

Nobody says that MSE detection ratings are POOR and EXTREMELY LOW.
PCMag's reviews do mention reputable sourses such as VirusBulletin , AV-Comparatives , AV-Test . The reviews of PCMag are much more program behaviour than static detection . Let's exclude the final mark , imagine there was no such mark - simply read the words from the beginning to the end.

 

I am sorry, Aspace. When I read on the PC Mag review page, stating that the cons of MSE are:

My dimunitive knowledge of English just made me think that some how all that meant detection that was not "Very Good".

Yes, I agree that is the way forward, Aspace. Mentioning AV Test labs in a few sentences and then disproving all that with in 2-3 paragraphs on the basic of your cutting-edge-testing (better than those two timing labs).

A-Space, again my english knowledge is letting me down. Could you show me where in the 2-page review done on 09.29.09 of MSE 1.0 there is mention (or even typing) of AV-Comparatives or AV-Test.org ?? As you have read the whole article quite well, could you please shower your kind assistance ??

Yes, right again, Aspace. There review methodology is so much better than the one devised by 40 odd AV vendors and test labs at AMTSO. Which again you must have read (I am sure).

Again I just have to agree with you, Aspace. Damn those fanboys who reject clear logic and just keep posting nonsense defacing PC Mag. I don't understand why more people didn't protest when AV-Comparatives recently gave a low grade to Kaspersky. Obviously their testing doesn't do concentrate on program behavior than static detection. Onwards brother to AV-Comparative thread/forum, justice shall be served today....

 

It seems lke a good review to me, even after reading this entire thread, and I'm glad I'm not using MSE to keep my PC clean.

 

Yes , it means average! And when we take the reality and the AV-Comparatives test we can say it is true . Isn't Microsoft given a Standart award - just 90% detection rate

You trust AMTSO - here is what AV-Comparatives shows :

~Screenshot replaced with link~ http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews

PCMag is a magazine and AV-Test.org do publishes results in this magazine
http://www.av-test.org/index.php?menue=1&lang=0

Blind people , again . This is a MASS-MAGAZINE review . This is it - made for the masses - ads , "badly-written" (doesn't always mean incorrect) reviews ... Masses are not professionals!!!

The reviews made by those organisations such as VB , AVC , AV-Test are not made to be read that way .

Have a look at the reviews from VB - they are completely different . But the reason is that Virus Bulletin is not for the masses .

Because there is nothing to protest against . Protest against real things or what ?


edit : and don't get me wrong . I do like Microsoft as a company and do appreciate what they are doing and have done . I think that they provide the best customer service and technical support I have ever seen , including antivirus support and consultations . I am just trying to say that MSE itself is nothing special as a product - just an average product and thus the review of PCMag (written for the masses) is correct . An average mark is the right one , IMO.

 

I don't mind reading Neil J. Rubenking's articles and not every security software is going to protect you 100 percent. He's showing the general internet users how the product is performing in his own terms. Surely, not everyone will have this doomsday scenario he's playing out with MSE.

 

Exactly. That's why their review of MSE or any other av program should be viewed with a grain of salt.
Wasn't PCMag the site that used a testbed of 25 samples for a test a year or so ago?
If so, contrast that with AV-Comparatives testbed of thousands.

 

.
It may be the reviewer treats the products as single anti-malware solutions because average users treat them that way. In other words, the average user installs one security application and thinks he has met the need for protection. Obviously if he installs MSE he is getting less protection then the usual suite provides. We know that MSE isn't supposed to do everything and we will add other applications to round out the package, but newbies will not. But if you really want to know for sure why not email Neil and ask him? He's very personable and has always answered my emails.

 

Aspace, my issue is with PC Mag articles being misunderstood as reviews.

PC Mag articles are opinionistic, uses not standard/certified methods and many times ill informed.

PC Mag review = Neil's Opinion Piece
So I decry it.

IMO, that's still no reason to be incorrect. Newspapers/Cable Channels are also mass market. But when they become politically sided or propagate false info they are taken to task. Same here.


I am in no way implying that MSE is the best. But want to imply that PC Mag articles should be taken will large dab of salt.

 

It's odd to me how the mere mention of MSE in a thread title at Wilders has Symantec racing in to comment like a moth to the flame.The way this obsession is going on they'll be boiling rabbits at Redmond next.

 

I got a kick out of reading this post. "Onwards brother to AV-Comparative thread/forum, justice shall be served today..." lol that is too funny.

 

you know, it is only about 12 weeks till Christmas.

 

Yeah, I am getting ready to change my avatar for Holloween.

 

Here's another opinion from a PC World contributor. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent..._microsoft_security_essentials_is_solid_.html

 

This is the most useful observation in this thread.
For myself I don't see any place for MSE in a well thought out security scheme. It's strictly for losers who value freebies above security.

 

Just curious, but what is your well thought out security scheme?

 

Losers huh? Share wth everyone what a winner you are.

 

What a narrow view you have about MSE users

I see MSE as an integral part of Windows which should have been there in the 1st place. It offers basic and decent security for the average person.

Also remember this is version 1 and things will get better over time and use.
Just recall back to Mcafee, Norton, NOD32, Avira and so on when they were version 1

 

MSE is certainly not perfect but it is a relatively new application and will mature over time. Microsoft needs for it to succeed.
The same is (hopefully) true of the antivirus portion of Comodo Security Suite, Iobit, and other new security applications and those evolving such as Returnil, Prevx and Avast 5.

Remember;
these are FREE to try and to use whenever we wish.
At several points in time, I have been disappointed with Avast, Avira, AVG, Online Armor, the free Comodo firewall, and many, many others.

Three years ago, my antispyware applications were Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D, and Ewido- all free. I also thought my paid version of Trend Micro Antispyware version 3.0 was irreplaceable. Now, I use none of them, having switched to MBAM, SAS, and A-Squared (all free) and am much better protected.
That is progress and it's been good for me.

Every category of security software that I can think of offers more viable and free applications now than it did last year.
That is progress and that is good for all of us.

How times change, and in this instance, we all benefit.

 

Obviously MSE is creating quite a bit of anxiety among the big players. Posts as the one quoted above is a clear indication of the mudslinging to come.

 

I expect to see a whole load of MSE bashing posts on many forums from posters that are "entirely impartial,not in any way affiliated to paid-product vendors" in the coming months.

 

A widely spread universal lie

 

I don't think MSE is all that bad. Most of vendors want to show it as bad because it's eating their profit. Even if detection is not so hot, ease of use and no need for user intervention or need for license renewal are the main bright points. Hell, even i like it a lot. It' simple and it does the job done in one or at most 2 clicks. Besides, MSE will get significantly better once the user base reaches larger numbers. Statistics, data collection, samples collection, user responses etc. But they'll also be targeted more, so they'll have to work on detection. And they will. Trust me on that one.