Windows 7: Eset NOD 32v4 or Microsoft Security Essentials

oidicle · 28 Jun 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Mercurial

thought if it will be proven that MSE will have better Detection rates than kapersky (which has the best detection rate) I'll switch to it LOL!.

According to AV Comparatives report, Avira has the best Detection Rates not Kaspersky( Kaspersky doesn't even take 2nd or 3rd place), on the other hand Avira fails because it also has one of the highest false positives, including avast... It's useless to use a AV that has the best detection rates but at the same time may be deleting your clean files because of false positives...

That's why Eset is one of the best choices in that respect, it has top detection rates(not the best, but about 98.xx% and it has one of the lowest false positives....

AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Main-Tests

Compare the results, read both reports...

Mercurial · 28 Jun 2009

oh dear last time I checked kapersky was number 1 detection rates....

well when MSE beats highest detection rates then? XD

also I hope they don't prompt user to do something each time they detect a virus... * like eset *

ps: they were using eset 3.0 in the test lol.... they shoulda used 4 :P

zigzag3143 · 28 Jun 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Charles Kane

I think that there is currently no definitive answer to the question. MSE is, at least partially, an unknown quantity. It is already getting good reviews from authoritative sources - such as:

AV-Test GmbH tested Microsoft Security Essentials, the free software Microsoft launched yesterday in beta, on Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7, putting it up against nearly 3,200 common viruses, bot Trojans and worms, said Andreas Marx, one of the firm's two managers. The malware was culled from the most recent WildList, a list of threats actually actively attacking computers.
"All files were properly detected and treated by the product," said Marx in an e-mail. "That's good, as several other [antivirus] scanners are still not able to detect and kill all of these critters yet."
AV-Test also measured Security Essentials against a set of in-house false positives to see whether the software mistakenly fingers legitimate files, a nightmare for users, who can be left with a crippled computer, and a disaster to the reputation of a security company.
"None of the clean files were flagged as being malicious," noted Marx. "Very good."

(quoted from Computerworld)

Also in its favour is that it runs flawlessly in 7 (and I'd say has a good simple GUI too)

Eset is well established and gets reasonable results from authoritative sources. Not the very best but pretty good. An example is the above reported AV-Test GmbH. This chart should give everyone with their favorites hours of fun - 34 AVs Compared.

Eset has IMO an excellent GUI and runs "quietly".

So both are good solid alternatives.

I know many will scream blue murder but I run them both! Neither complains about the other, neither or even both use much in the way of resources. Still I can't be sure this is a good idea.

Attachment 15533

What I have learnt re AV and Windows 7 is this:

Not all AV solutions work in 7
Some AV solutions work flawlessly (Eset, MSE, Avast and, I think Avira)(there are probably others)
Most AV solutions are pretty good at what they do and none are perfect.
A few AV solutions are below par and there are better options.
We should all worry LESS about this "problem"

I run them both as well and they both play nice together.
Ken

Dixon Butz · 28 Jun 2009

A lot of Eset fanboyz. Doen't do too well on new zero day virus. Always at the bottom

Most Effective Antivirus Tools Against New Malware Binaries

KazeNoKoe23 · 28 Jun 2009

I run NOD32 but only because it was 70% off its regular price on NCIX.

Once my subscription runs out, however, I'll give MSE a good look.

ciphernemo · 28 Jun 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Dixon Butz

A lot of Eset fanboyz. Doen't do too well on new zero day virus. Always at the bottom

Most Effective Antivirus Tools Against New Malware Binaries

Why the heck is that small group of people testing with "NOD32v2" (version 2) when 4 is current? And this was a recent test? Compared to other AV products that are updated versions? That's not fair at all.

Sounds like bad testing with poorly tracked test parameters. For example, what O/S are they running, what exact conditions are in this 24-window? And for that site, when I click on the log links, they show nothing.

Also, not all AV developers release updates on the same schedule during the day. ESET was originally developed outside of the US (Slovakia), though they have headquarters here now, among other countries. In other words, that test is quite sketchy.

And for the NOD32 fan boys, the official NOD32 song (though a bit cheesy, lol).

And a much better ESET song, lol!

Mercurial · 28 Jun 2009

lololol nice song.... hurray ESET FAN CLUB!!!

here eset trailer and ads lol
Eset Nod32 Smart Security Advertisement

oidicle · 29 Jun 2009

Yeah, rock on ESET

Snufffed · 29 Jun 2009

I'm all for ESET SS, really like the FW an method to set. #1 in my book. Also FREE 100%. a friend of mine in the PENTAGON gives me license ... They switched from Symantec Corp. some yrs ago. I'm testing MSE (by it self), how else can you give it a FAIR evaluation. PS: 99.9% of the articles written by - are PAID AD's.
I STILL THINK IT IS BAD TO RUN 2 OR MORE FIREWALLS OR ANTIVIRUS PROGRAMS AT THE SAME TIME.

ciphernemo · 29 Jun 2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Snuffy

I STILL THINK IT IS BAD TO RUN 2 OR MORE FIREWALLS OR ANTIVIRUS PROGRAMS AT THE SAME TIME.

I agree, though I don't know if it would actually cause problems. I'm sure some would, and it is possible that some wouldn't. But still, if someone is running multiple Firewalls or AV products, their network traffic and/or data is running through multiple passes, yielding more overhead and system resource drain than running just one.

Windows 7: Eset NOD 32v4 or Microsoft Security Essentials

Eset NOD 32v4 or Microsoft Security Essentials problems?