SOLVED Microsoft Security Essentials ?

[falvares]

Hi,

After using Bitdefender for some years (since 2006 - I still use it in some of my family's computers because of its easyness of configuration), since 2007 I use Kasperky Internet Security (now in version 2010) in my own computer, and am very satisfied with it.

Now reading the "Microsoft Security Essentials Review" (http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/mse.asp) I have some questions:

- Could MSE be a replacement for Bitdefender and/or Kaspersky? If not Why?
- Any of you, fellows, are using MSE as your AV solution? If not, why?

Thanks for any thoughts.

Fernando

 

[Ian]

I'm using KIS 2010 on my main PC, but on other computers I do use MSE instead - as it's free and works well. KIS 2010 has many more features than MSE, which is the main reason I stick with it. On computers that family members use, I just install MSE as it does the job well and the advanced features aren't needed.

You could install it on one machine and see how you like it . It's pretty good from my experience so far.

 

[davehc]

I have been using MSE since it's early Beta era. I confess that I do not visit "naughty" sites, but in all that time, I have not picked up a virus.

If, as Ian says, you are not too interested in many options, (There are a few in MSE), then this does the job and is very low on use of resources.

 

[Core]

My experience has been that MSE is extremely easy on the resources, which is nice, but doesn't detect threats as well as Symantec. I had MSE as my sole AV solution for a while, but when I replaced it with Symantec, a number of viruses were found that MSE was clueless to. Ergo, I wouldn't use it as the only solution, at least not until it matures as a product a bit more. I think for basic harmless web surfing MSE might be sufficient, but I personally do tend to visit a bunch of porno sites and stuff, so I need something with more umph.

 

[falvares]

While searching the internet for additional information on MSE, found this infamous post - "Microsoft Security Essentials: “Reruns” Aren’t Just for TV Anymore" (http://community.norton.com/t5/Nort...ssionid=28AF8790DB5946D4FCAA0B48A8B855C7#A374) - and some very interesting comments.

 

[clifford_cooley]

You are reading something from a competitor's website. I would never consider reading anything about a product from a competitor stand point as it would probably be biased. Naturally Norton would want to steer you into purchasing there product.

I'm not saying the article is false. I'm only stating, consider the source.

I would also like to mention - Norton is a paid product - MSE is a free product. If you want to compare notes between Norton and MSE, thats not saying much for Norton as it should only be compared to another paid product.

 

[falvares]

Hi Clifford,

I'm aware of that ("You are reading something from a competitor's website. I would never consider reading anything about a product from a competitor stand point as it would probably be biased."), that's why I qualified that post as "infamous", and pointed to, what I called, "some very interesting comments", where folks give nice "feedback" to Mr. Mike Plante

So far I can tell you I'm very inclined to give MSE a try.

Regards,

Fernando

 

[davehc]

I would suggest that, if you are wanting anti virus to do a basic cleaning and protection job, and free or, if you have a low performance computer and do not wish to use too many resources, then MSE would probably please you.

Perhaps it should be considered that MSE is a standalone program. It benchmarkes more effectively against other similar (Free) programs.
Here is a more independant comment, but remember that MSE is still in very early development.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/se...esting_microsofts_free.html?wprss=securityfix

Note, particularly, this para:
"AV-Test's Andreas Marx said the group's testing found MSE had no effective "dynamic detection" against a handful of very recently released malware samples. Still, Marx said, other anti-virus-only offerings don't appear to offer much in the way of dynamic detection either. "

 

[catilley1092]

Although I don't give advice on wide open AV threads anymore (everyone has their opinion of who's best), I will jump into this one and say that MSE has served me well for the past five months or so. At first, I refused to install it on Windows 7, first testing it on XP Pro for a couple of months. It's not a resource hog, even while doing a short scan nightly, it doesn't slow me down. It performed as well on Windows 7, and I trust it for my protection. But as Core stated above, for porn sites you may need a little more. Also, and it won't get in your way, you can use Malwarebytes (free). It's not "real time" protection, but it's a powerful scanner that picks up the things some programs miss. Just make sure to update it prior to scanning. As far as Norton goes, they are stooping low, attempting to compete with the free AV's. Why don't they target the paid ones instead? It came pre-installed on my desktop, and it was the first program to be removed. In fact, I removed it without giving it the first chance to "protect" me. I feel that you'll like MSE, falvares.

 

[Thrax]

Statistically speaking (tested with 1,000,000 virus samples), Avira offers the best protection on the market.

 

[falvares]

Thank yow all folks, for your valuable comments!

Fernando

 

[patrickt]

There doesn't seem to be much of a correlation between a program that finds a lot of "threats" and one that doesn't when it comes to your computer getting infected. I think some of the, "Oh, oh, we might have a threat here," is hype.