Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Windows Defender?

[Big Steel]

Most other anti-virals know to exclude these files by default.

So? You have the option to exclude it.

If a file
has been faked, then it won't run, it'll simply be considered a data file.

What? you can easily rename a dll assembly to be an avi file type. A
hosting exe or another dll can load it, host it and execute it right
under your nose. And you would never know it -- right in your face.

Well, I've done it before, and therefore I find it useful.

I don't. It is what it is.

 

[Flint]

What? Are you serious? Why don't you toss the sink in there too?

Well, only two of those are actually running, Defender and Avast!.
Malwarebytes is scheduled to run a periodic disk scan during an
off-hours interval/period from any other automatic housekeeping.

Furthermore, Defender and Avast! both allow certain features of their
engines to be disabled so as to get them to coexist in a complimentary
"cog teeth" manner rather than bumping heads and impacting on system
resources unnecessarily. In effect, the two really act as one system
in terms of cpu/disk utilization.

Spybot's detection is used only during *manually* invoked scans, and
is still a very good scanner to have handy along with Malwarebytes,
although I find it less necessary because Malewarebytes/RKill works
rather well.

Spybot's 'tea timer' worked pretty well as a precursor type/equivalent
to Vista's/W7's UAC (hence no longer necessary) but it's still useful
on XP (although I don't recommend running it if you are using Defender
on XP - use only one or the other).

 

[Big Steel]

Well, only two of those are actually running, Defender and Avast!.
Malwarebytes is scheduled to run a periodic disk scan during an
off-hours interval/period from any other automatic housekeeping.

Furthermore, Defender and Avast! both allow certain features of their
engines to be disabled so as to get them to coexist in a complimentary
"cog teeth" manner rather than bumping heads and impacting on system
resources unnecessarily. In effect, the two really act as one system in
terms of cpu/disk utilization.

Spybot's detection is used only during *manually* invoked scans, and is
still a very good scanner to have handy along with Malwarebytes,
although I find it less necessary because Malewarebytes/RKill works
rather well.

Spybot's 'tea timer' worked pretty well as a precursor type/equivalent
to Vista's/W7's UAC (hence no longer necessary) but it's still useful on
XP (although I don't recommend running it if you are using Defender on
XP - use only one or the other).

If you were saying this in a firewall and security ng, they would say
that you are running a lot of snake-oil. I am sorry that's what they
would say.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Yousuf,

I have been using Microsoft Security Essentials for about 9 months,
now. Before that I used Norton and I also tried AVG. I switched to
MSSE because the Norton and AVG were both resource hogs.

Using MSSE is like getting a new machine: the response is snappy and
it does the job of defending my machine against attacks. I have
never had a virus get past any of my programs (ie Norton, AVG, or
MSSE). I use it on two machines that run Windows 7 and One that
runs XP.

At least, that's my experience. I really like it.

I agree about Norton and AVG, but MSSE has failed to catch too many
pieces of malware for family and friends that I've moved over to Avast
(and moved family and friends over too - after rescuing their PCs...).
Just my experience, but I've never had a PC protected by an up-to-date
Avast get compromised, but about a dozen family and friends PCs
"protected" by up-to-date MSSE have been.

--
Zaphod

Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's
something big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the
universe gets that.

 

[Flint]

I've had the same experience. Avast is far superior to MSSE and AVG.

I'll third that opinion... Avast! is superior.

 

[D@LS]

I'll third that opinion... Avast! is superior.

What about ESET NOD 32 ?

 

[Big Steel]

What about ESET NOD 32 ?

Nod32 is one of the best. I have used it for many years.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

What about ESET NOD 32 ?

I have no personal experience with it, but have heard good reviews.

 

[Ken Blake]

What about ESET NOD 32 ?

Here's my opinion. NOD32 is the best such product available. Tied for
second place are the following three:

1. Avast
2. Avira
3. Microsoft Security Essentials

 

[relic]

Here's my opinion. NOD32 is the best such product available. Tied for
second place are the following three:

1. Avast
2. Avira
3. Microsoft Security Essentials

VB100 rates NOD32 as its 1st place winner, but its 2nd place winner has been
Kaspersky for years. Did that change?

 

[D@LS]

Here's my opinion. NOD32 is the best such product available. Tied for
second place are the following three:

1. Avast
2. Avira
3. Microsoft Security Essentials

Good. That's what's on my machine.
Thanks

 

[Ken Blake]

VB100 rates NOD32 as its 1st place winner, but its 2nd place winner has been
Kaspersky for years. Did that change?

I don't know. I was presenting my view, not theirs.

 

[Flint]

Nod32 is one of the best. I have used it for many years.

I've used it before years ago, and it was once of the fast disk
scanners I've used, but they don't have a free version beyond a 30-day
trial, no?

 

[D@LS]

I've used it before years ago, and it was once of the fast disk
scanners I've used, but they don't have a free version beyond a 30-day
trial, no?

I bought it when I upgraded, have no idea about a freebe.

 

[Ken Blake]

I've used it before years ago, and it was once of the fast disk
scanners I've used, but they don't have a free version beyond a 30-day
trial, no?

That's correct. It has to be paid for.