Is Microsoft Security Essentials a replacement for Norton?

Richie-from-the-Boro

jakswan wrote: »

Use this at your own risk etc as a rule of thumb I generally use Avira AntiVir Personal when it updates there is window that pops up trying to sell you their latest product but it seems to do the job.

It doesn't harm to do the odd scan using an online scan now and again, Panda Activescan and Trend Housecall are well known names in the industry.

This combined with Spybot and you should be fairly safe especially if you can recognise a dodgy website. Always found Norton and Macafee to be a bit bloatware.

I know I'm biased but if it has Microsoft in the name for me it's normally one to avoid

Why .. .. would you avoid Microsoft Security Essentials ?

Richie-from-the-Boro

5bellies wrote: »

Thanks for your vote of confidence. It's people like you that put me off trying to help people.

I only say what I see, and I've seen Microsoft Security Essentials miss virus infections on dozens of PCs. I wouldn't trust it on my machines, or those of my customers.

- and like with like comparison you have not seen a similar incidence rate on other free AV products ?

aliEnRIK

5bellies wrote: »

I've seen Microsoft Security Essentials on a few machines that have been brought to me for repair. Certainly not impressed with it yet, better ones are available.

What would you recommend?

JJ_Egan

Lets say a high number of users who frequent places that are more likely to be virus ridden are rating MSE highly as a freebie .I am also getting positive feedback from a number of tech articles where the product has received a plus .

jje

5bellies_2

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- and like with like comparison you have not seen a similar incidence rate on other free AV products ?

I've seen worse on AVG, better on Avast.

I consider MSE to be a work in progress. After all, it's only been out for 12 months and - like most Microsoft stuff - is not perfect out of the box. I'm sure it will improve and my opinion of it will change but, right now, I don't recommend it to my customers.

Hammyman

5bellies wrote: »

Thanks for your vote of confidence. It's people like you that put me off trying to help people.

I only say what I see, and I've seen Microsoft Security Essentials miss virus infections on dozens of PCs. I wouldn't trust it on my machines, or those of my customers.

Perhaps you'd care to explain its very high or top ranking in AV tests?

And IME, its computers with AVG on which seem to be the majority I'm dealing with.

At the end of the day, morons will get infected no matter what security they have simply because they ignore the great big red "DANGER" warning sign because they want to see Britney Spears beaver on that MPG they've just downloaded from some dodgy site.

I put it on all of my customers machines, no problems.

5bellies_2

Hammyman wrote: »

Perhaps you'd care to explain its very high or top ranking in AV tests?

And IME, its computers with AVG on which seem to be the majority I'm dealing with.

At the end of the day, morons will get infected no matter what security they have simply because they ignore the great big red "DANGER" warning sign because they want to see Britney Spears beaver on that MPG they've just downloaded from some dodgy site.

I put it on all of my customers machines, no problems.

Agree about AVG, and the morons.

Like I said in my original thought on the matter 'not impressed with it yet, better ones are available.'

That's my opinion and, unless it tops every poll, the test results also agree better ones are available.

Richie-from-the-Boro

#16

There you go 5bellies, you now say "" I've seen worse on AVG, better on Avast. "" is a much more balanced approach. BTW its been around for much longer, it was, in its previous incarnation known as OneCare. I personally believe that there was / is an attempt to improve interwibble hygiene by a number of players, AVG and Avast to name but two. Its important to recognise that whist AVG and Avast may have other interests in releasing a limited-functionality suite to the public [ branding / sales ] Microsoft have no other benefit than to assist in cleansing the net and the puters that subscribe to it, and its content.

#14 "" What would you recommend "" ?

#18 which better ones are available ?

5bellies_2

Microsoft have no other benefit than to assist in cleansing the net and the puters that subscribe to it, and its content.

...and they'll be giving Windows away free next...

closed

Avast free includes email scanning, no splash screens, has fewer false positives, is less intrusive, less memory hungry, better interface, better at updating, than either avira free or mse imo, and is up there near the top of the detection rates. Best option currently imo, and that includes paid for alternatives and the ubiquitous AVG (which I wouldn't recommend).

Along with malwarebytes free on demand scanner and hitman pro, the combination will deal with most threats out there without slowing your pc down to a crawl. Won't stop 100% of threats, but none do, 98-99%+ is the best you can hope for.

aug 2010 freeware av compatatives on demand results

avast 99.3% detected advanced+ and fastest scanning of all products tested (3 times faster than mse!)
avg 98.3% detected advanced, but many false positives, average speed
mse 97.6% detected advanced but slow scanning

percentage detection rates are based on a large sample of 900000 known threats, it should only be used as an indication of effectiveness because there are far more threats out there.

peak memory usage (very pertinent on low ram systems, the lower the better)

avast 60MB
avg 125MB
avira 215MB
mse 317MB