Microsoft Security Essentials

vbimport

#1

Microsoft Security Essentials
Anyone using it on Windows 7?

I’ve been using it for around a week, basically just to try it.
I have Kaspersky AV with a 3 PC licence, but the licence is about to expire.

What i’ve noticed is MSE is less of a burden on the PC compared to Kaspersky AV, and so far seems to give effective AV protection.
The price is also right for MSE. :slight_smile:

Anyone using MSE?
Your opinions, please…


#2

I’ve been using MSE since it was first released to the public. I’ve had no problems with it, and have remained virus free, though my browsing habits tend to keep me from dangerous sites anyway.

I’ve recommended MSE to others and have put it on all the computers I own, and those of my family. It is totally transparent on my computers…I never notice it, which is a good trait for an AV program.


#3

[QUOTE=Dee;2548937]
Anyone using MSE?
Your opinions, please…[/QUOTE]

Im Using it on my Vista since last year AND very happy with it .
Had Bit Defender 3pc licence 4 about 3/4 years Last year got AVG and MSE.

MSE pickes up trojans and other junk that Bit dident find or AVG .
MY 14 year old Son Comes Home from School with Flash stiks from friend with nice Viruses on and MSE gets ris of them before they get into my PC .

also found viruses from DVD`s backed up from my older Sons PC ( running BIT )

[I]IF I had to pay for it probley wood[/I] :bigsmile:


#4

[QUOTE=Dee;2548937]Microsoft Security Essentials
Anyone using it on Windows 7?

I’ve been using it for around a week, basically just to try it.
I have Kaspersky AV with a 3 PC licence, but the licence is about to expire.

What i’ve noticed is MSE is less of a burden on the PC compared to Kaspersky AV, and so far seems to give effective AV protection.
The price is also right for MSE. :slight_smile:

Anyone using MSE?
Your opinions, please…[/QUOTE]

PC Pro don’t seem to think much of it but it is of course free after all.

Review here.

This is going to sound like heresy but believe it or not Norton has improved beyond all recognition and is winning a lot of group tests ATM.

It’s the one that I’d currently lean towards and here’s why.

If you are buying it though get the OEM version which is basically the retail version without the manual and you can get it online for £16ish last time I looked.

Have a look at some of the group tests elsewhere though before you make up your mind.

[B]Wombler[/B]


#5

I use it on my HTPC because it is low impact, although, like Kerry, I don’t generally go to bad sites. I do try a lot of different streaming and shopping sites though.


#6

[QUOTE=Wombler;2548996]PC Pro don’t seem to think much of it but it is of course free after all.[/quote]Of course they have to. Have you realised the Norton ad on their website? :bigsmile:

This is going to sound like heresy but believe it or not Norton has improved beyond all recognition and is winning a lot of group tests ATM.
Have fun if an essential system file is detected as virus.

If you are buying it though get the OEM version which is basically the retail version without the manual and you can get it online for £16ish last time I looked.

I recently saw another interesting bundle: Norton 2011 together with “Die Hard IV” :smiley:

Michael


#7

I have been using it on four Windows 7, one Vista and two XP computers, since it was offered, with no issues. It seems to work as good as the Norton AV software that it replaced. Like has been mentioned, the price is right.


#8

[QUOTE=mciahel;2549003]Of course they have to. Have you realised the Norton ad on their website? :bigsmile:
Have fun if an essential system file is detected as virus.
I recently saw another interesting bundle: Norton 2011 together with “Die Hard IV” :smiley:

Michael[/QUOTE]

LOL I knew I was going to get a lot of flak for posting that.

Honestly though I use Norton Antivirus here now and it’s completely different to the versions I used to have to put up with in work in the past.

It used to be bloated, resource heavy and you were forced to carry out full scans every so often which made your entire PC grind to a halt and took forever.

Now it’s almost invisible, it’s fast and does all it’s scans completely in the background.

Here’s a review from a site that Kaspersky advertises with. :wink:

[B]Wombler[/B]


#9

If the PC has a dual core CPU and plenty of RAM (1GB+ for XP or 2GB+ for 7), Microsoft Security Essentials seems to perform quite well. However, from my experience, it does run a bit sluggish on Netbooks and older PCs, especially if they lack on RAM.

As far as virus detection goes, no virus protection package is 100% effective and unfortunately I’ve seen many machines infected even with Microsoft Security Essentials running and completely unaware that there is a problem. Between this and its RAM usage, I seldom recommend this free AV package.

My favourite free AV at the moment is Avast free edition and it seems to be pretty effective. Since it launched version 5, it is also the lightest package I’m aware of and will comfortably run on Windows XP with 512MB RAM or Windows 7 with 1GB RAM. It also doesn’t seem to hog the CPU and was the fastest out of 20 AVs tested going by AV Comparitives (news story):

avast! clocked in with the fastest scanning speed out of all 20 tested programs. Its throughput rate was 30% faster than Symantec/Norton or AVG. avast! was nearly three times faster than Microsoft Security Essentials, which had the second slowest scanning speed of all tested programs.

I’ve Avast free running in Windows XP mode and the following gives an idea of the RAM usage:

I’ve Microsoft Security Essentials running in another Windows XP Virtual PC. Notice the RAM usage:

The above screenshots were taken after idling ~5 minutes after a fresh boot with automatic updates disabled.




#10

I’ve used Avast in the past. The last severe infection I saw (friend’s brother-in-law’s computer), Avast was completely useless and was disabled by the virus. I reformatted and reinstalled his system. That guy is reckless in his web surfing, but has had no more virus problems using MSE.

We could go round and round with individual stories of virus infections, with conflicting experiences. The truth is, no AV program can stop all of the malware out there.

MSE is very good about very few false positive results. See here: http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_od_aug2010.pdf That is a pdf doc, and may take some time to load. That doc also shows MSE to be one of the slowest scanners, but hasn’t been a problem for me personally.

This subject was brought up over at Ars Technica recently, with a poll between Kaspersky and MSE: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1121715&hilit=microsoft+security+essentials
Very knowledgeable group there, and an overwhelming vote of confidence in MSE.


#11

So far so good with MSE on my pc, and my netbook with only 1gb ram and win 7 starter works very good with MSE.
My personal experience is that someday you will get a virus, no matter what AV you are using, and i believe that most free AV do a very good job keeping a PC as safe as it can be.
On the other hand the last time i payed for an AV it was norton and kasperky.
The norton AV was bad, and it had a close relationship with my RAM, next was kaspersky, and it was good, plus it didn’t want to get married with my system ram (the good part), but i also didn’t want to pay for a license, so i ended with MSE and so far i am satisfied.

So if i had to pay, i would choose kaspersky (did a great job keeping my system clean) and if i had to choose from the free AV, MSE and AVAST (both did what the kasperky did, but for free).


#12

[QUOTE=Kerry56;2549030] [B]The truth is, no AV program can stop all of the malware out there.[/B][/quote]I fixed the font. :smiley:

[QUOTE=vroom;2549032]
My personal experience is that someday you will get a virus, no matter what AV you are using, (…)[/QUOTE]So you are doing something wrong.

Michael


#13

oh no, were not hashing this out again are we. :bigsmile:

:cool::cool:


#14

Hehe :bigsmile: :smiley: :cool:


#15

Kaspersky AV is a lot faster than MSE, I doubt MSE provides as good protection as KAV.
//Danne


#16

Well i guess this is like hardware.
Intel vs AMD
ATi vs NVidia
Optiarc vs Liteon
SandForce SSD vs Intel SSD
etc etc

Everyone has their own opinion, basically from personal experience.

I’ve tried Avast, Norton, and Avira today, and all placed about the same burden on the system as Kaspersky. In fact Kaspersky seemed less obtrusive than some of them. MSE certainly wins on this score, you wouldn’t even know its there.
Now that could mean it doesn’t scan as much as the others, but I think I may take the risk (for now) with MSE.

Avast was certainly very fast at scanning. But with a very fast SSD, MSE isn’t exactly a slouch, either. :slight_smile:
73389 files in 15 seconds is not bad :smiley:



#17

[QUOTE=mciahel;2549105]
So you are doing something wrong.

Michael[/QUOTE]

YES :bigsmile:


#18

I would rather a virus scan take longer rather than for it to render my PC basically useless while it scanned. That said, I don’t run any AV software on a regular basis. I’ll run several of them once every few months. Usually nothing is found other than occasional spyware. I’m quite careful on files I open and web sites I visit. I also have Sygate personal firewall.

I wanted to use MSE but found that it would not function without being able to first connect to the internet to get updates. I wanted to do the updates manually (when I felt like it). I never found a way to run MSE only when I wanted it to run.

RM


#19


This might be interesting to read
//Danne


#20

i used avast for several years. bought a license for bitdefender and it was my worst software experience. [not going to get into it right now] so tried a few of the free programs. have been using MSE ever since.

i had AVG free installed on my mothers computer. she got a virus, so i cleaned it with malwarebytes and installed avast. just last month she got another virus so i did a reformat and installed MSE.