PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft Security Essentials



ted
11-02-2009, 06:39 PM
We finally dumped Norton and installed Microsoft Security Essentials on all our computers except our TriCaster.
So far no problems and unofficially we think things are running a little faster.
Has anyone else installed Microsoft Security Essentials and what's your take on it?

Either way, I'm glad to be Norton free! :thumbsup:

ken_g9
11-02-2009, 09:22 PM
Installed it after a clean install of Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit. I'm liking it so far as the installation footprint is quite small. Small yet effective (so far). I'm glad I dumped Norton years ago. :D

COBRASoft
11-03-2009, 03:44 AM
I never used Norton, it's really slowing my computer down. I've had McAfee for years, quite happy about it. I will try the Microsoft Security Essentials though.

biliousfrog
11-03-2009, 04:20 AM
To be fair, any security app will be faster than Norton, I dumped it a few years ago mid-way through my contract because it was such a hulking mess of an application. I'm using Kaspersky currently and it's by far the best security app I've ever used although AVG wasn't bad.

I got my Win 7 licence through yesterday but I won't have a chance to install it for a while. I might give MSE a try, I'm not sure how many licences of Kaspersky I've got left.

Eroneouse
11-04-2009, 04:02 AM
AVG and Spybot Seek n Destroy here for AV and malware.

COBRASoft
11-04-2009, 04:39 AM
MSE installed, runs very smooth. Thanks for the tip!

Lightwolf
11-04-2009, 04:53 AM
The only downside from what I've read is that it can be extremely sloppy when it comes to updates to the virus definitions.
As in: not updating for days - and that's currently a killer reason for not using it.
However, I read about that two weeks ago, so that might have changed in the meantime.

Cheers,
Mike

Jockomo
11-04-2009, 06:26 AM
Well considering the fact that "windows update" decided that updating my computer in the middle of the night was more important than the animation I was rendering and rebooted my computer, I'm more than a little pissed at their attempts at security.

JML
11-04-2009, 06:51 AM
installing mcaffee crashed my window on first boot, so hated it since then.
had norton for a few years, and it was ok but expensive and when I installed their lastest version
on vista64, it was a little buggy.
Since then, I use avast and pretty happy about it.

JML
11-04-2009, 06:52 AM
Well considering the fact that "windows update" decided that updating my computer in the middle of the night was more important than the animation I was rendering and rebooted my computer, I'm more than a little pissed at their attempts at security.

go to control panel and choose automatic updates, then put it on
"download updates but let me choose when to install them"

Andyjaggy
11-04-2009, 11:27 AM
You couldn't pay me to use Norton.

Eroneouse
11-04-2009, 02:25 PM
Well considering the fact that "windows update" decided that updating my computer in the middle of the night was more important than the animation I was rendering and rebooted my computer, I'm more than a little pissed at their attempts at security.

Set your windows update feature to only update after you have reviewed the updates. I did this on XP I assume you use vista and its also an assumption this can be set up so in vista.

In XP... Start button > control panel > security center.

JML beat me to it, never noticed :)

kojean
11-06-2009, 04:33 AM
I've been happy with Avira Antivir, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware and the built-in Windows Firewall (with Sphinx Software's Windows 7 Firewall Control), although I've been thinking about testing MSE to see how it compares.

I used to have AVG on one machine, but it went downhill after hitting version 8.

csandy
04-25-2010, 09:53 AM
Avira is an excellent program, but it is not currently compatible with a range of NewTek products.

Current users who will purchase new NewTek products, and prospective customers seeking to glean pre-sales information from this forum likely wish to know about what experience they will receive going forward with various anti virus programs, so hopefully someone will find this note helpful. Of course, even the best software out there is incompatible with something. For those who have run into compatibility issues, hopefully some reassurance, even in an installation "read me" that a file may be safely deleted or ignored as a false positive would be appropriate.

Avira is indeed a popular antivirus program and one of the best. Independent tests have consistently shown this for some time. This link is one of many:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=144&Itemid=152

All antivirus software shows false positives however. The above empirical data is a record of that fact. It also shows that Avira is one of the best programs in limiting the number of false positives it reports.

Nevertheless, it's been widely reported and documented that the various NewTek support executables and Avira are not compatible. One helpful and constructive suggestion of having Avira analyze these executables and add to their database has been heard. You can debate whether the onus should be on the end user or the publisher to make this report. You can also discuss whether the end user or the publisher has more to gain by having a popular anti-virus program not report a false-positive. But ultimately such a discussion is irrelevant.

Here what you really have is a customer service issue and a business issue. Choices.

The publisher can decide how it wants to respond and it has by saying the product is safe.

The end user can decide how he or she wants to respond by either using one product, the other; modifying one or the other, or by using neither.

My personal decision was to simply delete files that seem extraneous because I use Avira as well. OF course this is not an ideal move, as one day something will be deleted that causes problems in the proper functioning of a program down road. But I came to this decision for the following reasons:

1. I use Avira, not for popularity's sake, but because independent tests have shown, and my own anecdotal experiences have proven in my particular circumstance, that AVG (used to love that one), Microsoft Security Essentials, Symantec Antivirus, and McAfee have not provided adequate protection for my systems.

2. Avira is relatively fast.

3. I got tired of re-installing my OS every 6 months because some nasty/annoying virus got through.

4. The NewTek file I deleted didn't seem to do anything I particularly cared about or could do without.

5. No one smarter than me told me I shouldn't do #4 and neither did NewTek.

6. It makes me happy. :)

Because happiness is, after all, using great tools to create great results. Not fighting with virus related IT issues.

Zane Condren
04-25-2010, 10:23 AM
Quit bringing this issue up on unrelated theards, the issue is closed.

csandy
04-25-2010, 10:39 AM
Seemed appropriate given the previous poster had settled on using Avira. Seemed to be in line with the thread topic, anti virus products, albeit a bit old.

But you seem offended and I'm not paid to be useful so I won't bring it up again because it's your forum, after all.

Ĺgrén
04-25-2010, 11:57 AM
It is ironic that a company manages to sell protection for its own operating system holes.

Lightwolf
04-25-2010, 12:03 PM
It is ironic that a company manages to sell protection for its own operating system holes.
Except that it doesn't sell it...

Cheers,
Mike

Skonk
04-26-2010, 02:31 AM
The college where I work moved over to MSE (from Kaspersky, which replaced Symantec Corporate) some time back and the IT guys were pretty impressed with it.

So I switched to it several months ago on all my own machines and I havn't had any issues at all (and it fixed some of the slowdown issues I had with the other apps).

mattclary
04-26-2010, 12:01 PM
It is ironic that a company manages to sell protection for its own operating system holes.


It's free

Quiet1onTheSet
04-26-2010, 12:57 PM
Anyone locate a comparison between Microsoft Security Essentials, and Avira Personal Edition?

Q1

SBowie
04-26-2010, 12:59 PM
Anyone locate a comparison between Microsoft Security Essentials, and the professional version of Avira?
Q1Here's one:

http://www.brighthub.com/computing/smb-security/articles/50054.aspx

Quiet1onTheSet
04-26-2010, 01:31 PM
Here's one:

http://www.brighthub.com/computing/smb-security/articles/50054.aspx

Steve! Here's evidence that underneath that clinical demeanor, you've got a good heart. Thanks for that informative article.

Really good to know Microsoft has been at work improving their craft. Perhaps soon they'll catch up with Avira (having beaten them in the author's particular instance of a false positives test) -- in terms of detection performance, and efficient use of RAM.

As to design of the interface, I'm certainly for the ease of use that MSE is said to offer; while like the author of the article, I too find Avira's detection panel leaves me feeling a bit uncertain. (e.g., regarding whether or not to choose the "Note This Action" checkbox. Have no idea what the benefit is in that).

Overall, though, it's hard for me to want to install a security suite that forces me to have Windows Automatic Updates enabled, in order to have the antivirus protection updated without my manual intervention.

That, and the decidedly lesser performance vis a vis that of Avira PE is where MSE is a deal-breaker for me, personally. Yet, well-reasoned or not, others must be permitted to have their preference for MSE, without undue condemnation.

:D
Q1

SBowie
04-26-2010, 02:03 PM
Steve! Here's evidence that underneath that clinical demeanor, you've got a good heart.I never doubted it. :)


Really good to know Microsoft has been at work improving their craft. Perhaps soon they'll catch up with Avira (having beaten them in the author's particular instance of a false positives test)Actually in a number of areas the author of that particular report preferred Avira, he (or she) gave the edge on "Scanning" to MSE ("Scanning Performance: Winner – Microsoft Security Essentials") .... surprising, since MSE was noticeably slower. The reason for the rating seems to be the following fact: "No false positive by MSE after the system drive scan."

Different reviewers place different weight on various criteria, as do users. (Here's another example: http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/ - which by the way states "We look forward to seeing Avira work on lowering their high number of false positives"). I don't see any reason to be dogmatic about something like this. Use what you like.


Yet, well-reasoned or not, others must be permitted to have their preference for MSE, without undue condemnation. Yes, by all means let's allow people to make up their own mind without either condemnation or condescension. It's not at all hard to find reports that place this or that product higher or lower on their lists, based on various criteria.

Quiet1onTheSet
04-26-2010, 02:26 PM
Now, now, let's play fair.

It's not surprising that the most recent site you provided, being a commercial site, is rife with reporting inconsistencies -- perhaps it's skewed toward profitability? http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/

A glaring truth is that there's little consistency between the rankings in the comparative grid presented, and the associated review, for each product in the grid.

To wit:
Glancing at the comparative matrix, one is sucked into believing that Avira Premium was ranked #10 in effectiveness, yet, the body of text in the article gives way to revealing the complete opposite!

"Avira AntiVir is one of the best in the business, and has several compelling features that make it a great choice for antivirus software. And while the software didn’t offer some convenient features (like a silent gamer mode) that others have, the effectiveness is second to none. We look forward to seeing Avira work on lowering their high number of false positives, but can certainly recommend their antivirus software."

Fact is, a user wouldn't encounter that "high" number if they turned off the aggressive, advanced heuristics detection feature that a number of the others do not support.

Q1

SBowie
04-26-2010, 04:12 PM
It's not surprising that the most recent site you provided, being a commercial site, is rife with reporting inconsistenciesThere are numerous such sites, and I could easily find a dozen more - even ones which draw different conclusions from the very same raw data ... which is why you make your choice, and live with it.

As an example, here's another comment from the first source:

The malware scanners by Microsoft, ESET and Kaspersky has received the highest certification level in the latest proactive and retrospective tests by AV Comparative.

AntiVir by Avira actually detected more than Microsoft, ESET and Kaspersky were able to detect but due to many false positives by AntiVir in this round of test, Avira was penalized together with GDATA and BitDefender. Brighthub.com (http://www.brighthub.com/computing/smb-security/blog/archive/2009/05/28/microsoft-eset-and-kaspersky-took-the-lead-in-the-latest-comparative-test.aspx)

Taken to an extreme, a product could hyper-cautiously but quite rightly claim it was best, with "100% of all malware caught", simply by marking every file tested as suspect. Of course the number of false positives becomes a bit of a problem. :D

Somewhere a bit south of that approach is a reasonable compromise - a balance between safety, speed, and accuracy. Most of the usual top ten contenders generally arrive within a hairsbreadth (a couple of percentage points or less) of one another pretty consistently when it comes to accurate recognition, with other aspects being determining factors for different people - hence, as I've said, no point being dogmatic about it.

JohnMarchant
04-26-2010, 04:17 PM
Been using it on Win7 beta and now Win7 Ultimate 64bit works great and allot smaller footprint then Norton bloat ware and the like, quite happy so far.

Quiet1onTheSet
04-26-2010, 04:35 PM
There are numerous such sites, and I could easily find a dozen more - even ones which draw different conclusions from the very same raw data ... which is why you make your choice, and live with it.
Needless to say, your citing only the last portion of the Summary (while leaving off the strong, glowing words in favor of AntiVir was in a word, unforunate for your side of the debate, but no worries.

:hey:

Q1

Quiet1onTheSet
04-26-2010, 04:38 PM
Been using it on Win7 beta and now Win7 Ultimate 64bit works great and allot smaller footprint then Norton bloat ware and the like, quite happy so far. Glad you and Ted ditched Norton, JohnMarchant.

Good for you guys.

Unless corrected, I'll assume you also went with Microsoft Security Essentials, as did Ted.
Q1

SBowie
04-26-2010, 04:48 PM
Needless to say, your citing only the last portion of the Summary (while leaving off the strong, glowing words in favor of AntiVir was in a word, unforunate for your side of the debate, but no worries.The bit I ignored doesn't even mention Avira, but as you raise the point, here it is (lest there be any confusion): "The malware scanners by Microsoft, ESET and Kaspersky has received the highest certification level in the latest proactive and retrospective tests by AV Comparative." I have not attempted to colour the facts in any way shape or form. Use it, don't use it, love it, hate it, I really don't care.

FWIW, I left it out because it wasn't relevant. The relevant bit was the part I did quote. Antivir has a reputation for doing slightly better at trapping pests, but many report (just as one might expect) that this comes as a result of more aggressive heuristics, which in turn (again, according to numerous sources) results in a higher number of false positives returned. For some users, I'm sure this is a perfectly acceptable approach.

(Let's please allow this thread to get back 'on topic' now - MSE.)

csandy
04-27-2010, 08:36 AM
I think the really important fact here is that MSE is free and effective.

If it meets your needs then it should be an option you consider. In testing I tried MSE several months ago on my Core2Duo Dell laptop. I have SpeedEdit and LiveText running on that machine. MSE plays nice with it.

I ended up taking it off because you will almost always have a conflict installing multiple antivirus programs and I caught a particularly agressive virus that needed a more agressive antivirus program.

Like MediaPlayer though, I liked the fact that MSE is lean. I think Microsoft is starting to get that people don't like bloat. I use WMP instead of iTunes as a default on my system because WMP simply loads a lot faster and I don't have to wait around for iTunes to wake up.

Similarly with MSE I enjoyed the fact that it almost acted like an extension of the operating system.

I think the best part about MSE, particularly given this is a NewTek forum, is that it seems fully compatible across their product lines in my experience. You can install it and forget it's there. I use LW, Core, SE, LT, TriCaster, and VT and have not found that to be the case using at least one other top-10 bug killer.

Quiet1onTheSet
04-27-2010, 11:16 AM
The bit I ignored doesn't even mention Avira, but as you raise the point, here it is

Naw, actually, it does. Permit me to apologize for the lack of valuable specificity on my part, in failing to suggest for clarity's sake -- that the partial quote of the "Reviewer's Summary" you provided in Post #25, left off crucial information* that would have provided more balance, in the treatment of the Reviewer's Summary and Final Conclusion on the AntiVir Personal Edition vs. Microsoft Security Essentials comparative evaluation. [*Full quote of the Reviewer's Summary statement, in the color "lime", was made available in my subsequent post #26]


Conclusion
Quite obvious that both programs are offering the best possible detections but overall AntiVir is unbeatable!
Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/computing/smb-security/articles/50055.aspx#ixzz0mKLbkiEZ


Even so, the comparative study http://www.av-comparatives.org/index...144&Itemid=152 dated just 2 months ago, is far and away more congruous and objective than the horrific "example" served up at http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/

I concede that we are in agreement, relative to the usefulness of MSE, to NewTek product end-users, concerning its being free of reporting a false positive with the aforementioned Support.exe files, compared to AntiVir PE;

Moreover, we also agree that actually, both freely distributable products are suitably effective in fending off virii, malware, and trojans, etc., in their own right.

We further agree that ultimately, user-preference in choosing the products for protecting his/her system is transcendent over the performance distinctives amongst well designed antivirus products.

Thanks.

Q1
:)

OnlineRender
04-27-2010, 11:23 AM
I thought this thread got locked last night !

SBowie
04-27-2010, 11:38 AM
As long as it stays on topic (i.e.,there's no further OT ping pong) there's no valid reason to quash the discussion.

OnlineRender
04-27-2010, 11:42 AM
Ping PONG :devil:

SBowie
04-27-2010, 11:42 AM
Ping PONG :devil:To quote Jay - BANNED! :lightwave

OnlineRender
04-27-2010, 11:45 AM
talking about Banned when can we get Jin back I miss HIM 8/

Quiet1onTheSet
04-27-2010, 11:47 AM
...about MSE...You can install it and forget it's there.

Now, not so fast. There's a big caveat: With Microsoft Security Essentials, you must make certain your Windows Security Center is set up so as to allow Windows Automatic Updating, lest you fall into the trap of thinking MSE is being managed so as to remain "current", while it's not, if AU is off.

Just a Caution.

Contrariwise, the alternative freebie you've been using on your other equipment (AntiVir PE) couldn't care less if you have Windows Automatic Updating turned off (or not). A huge benefit for us.

Q1
:thumbsup:

Quiet1onTheSet
04-27-2010, 11:49 AM
As long as it stays on topic (i.e.,there's no further OT ping pong) there's no valid reason to quash the discussion.

Again, you're a good sport, Steve.

Q1

SBowie
04-27-2010, 11:52 AM
With Microsoft Security Essentials, you must make certain your Windows Security Center is set up so as to allow Windows Automatic Updating, lest you fall into the trap of thinking MSE is being managed so as to remain "current", while it's not, if AU is off.If this is correct, it is a bit of a nuisance, because I traditionally have AU set to 'notify', not auto. That said, it would still work, but I'd prefer that M$ would change this so one could selectively allow it to bypass AU.

Quiet1onTheSet
04-27-2010, 11:57 AM
If this is correct, it is a bit of a nuisance, because I traditionally have AU set to 'notify', not auto. That said, it would still work, but I'd prefer that M$ would change this so one could selectively allow it to bypass AU.

Again,
:agree:

Oh, the claim is correct, as it was borrowed from the review you provided. Pertinent text immediately precedes the summary.


Support, Definition and Program Updates: Winner – AntiVir PE
Both programs will offer definitions and program updates using its built-in updater. Both has the option to notify you when a program update is available automatically download and install when a new program update is available or do not download program updates.

"AntiVir’s program updater is better than MSE because with MSE, you will not receive definitions update at all if you choose to not to download updates for any products by Microsoft using Automatic Updates (AU). This means, you are not getting the pushed definitions update for MSE, if you have AU as disabled! AntiVir on the other hand will continue to download the definition updates even if you have the program update disabled..."

Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/computing/smb-security/articles/50055.aspx#ixzz0mKHI4XPw


The reviewer further notes that with the AntiVir PE updater, an ad pops up [inviting the freebie user to purchase the even more greatly-endowed versions (Premium or the Security Suite).

Rightly, Steve, the reviewer cites that it is recommended that Microsoft Security Essentials users [at least] have the Security Center's Windows Automatic Update set to "Notify", such as you already do.

Q1
:hey:

csandy
04-27-2010, 08:36 PM
I swear Steve Bowie and Quiet 1 on the Set are actually the same person and "they" "argue" back and forth just to amuse us.

OnlineRender
04-28-2010, 02:44 AM
It is ironic that a company manages to sell protection for its own operating system holes. [Edit: spam link removed]

hmm ! smell that ?

csandy
04-28-2010, 05:02 AM
Okay.... I give up. I thought it was already established MSE is free? What does the screen recorder have to do with anything? I don't get it.

Lightwolf
04-28-2010, 05:06 AM
Okay.... I give up. I thought it was already established MSE is free? What does the screen recorder have to do with anything? I don't get it.
<whisper>spam, reported</whisper>

Cheers,
Mike

SBowie
04-28-2010, 05:25 AM
Nothing starts my day off better than banning a spammer ....

Lightwolf
04-28-2010, 05:26 AM
Nothing starts my day off better than banning a spammer ....
If that's the case then I have an offer to make, just to make you happy :D

Cheers,
Mike

SBowie
04-28-2010, 05:31 AM
Perhaps it's because I'm only on my first sip of coffee, but I seem to need an explanation. Rather than risk another outbreak of dross in this thread, though, feel free to PM if you want to bother to enlighten me Mike.

OnlineRender
04-28-2010, 06:12 AM
Nothing starts my day off better than banning a spammer ....

Love the smell of Spam in the morning , reminds me of Victory !

Quiet1onTheSet
04-28-2010, 08:32 AM
I swear Steve Bowie and Quiet 1 on the Set are actually the same person and "they" "argue" back and forth just to amuse us.

Though situated here in a town called Bowie (named after a family that's part of Steve's pedigree), the association stops there.

Q1
:)