Microsoft Essentials vs. Norton's 2010

i use Avast 5 free and malwarebytes (paid) and never had a problem if it get past avast than malwarebytes gets it. also use pc tools firewall plus we can talk for hours which single anti virus is the "best" but we all know deep down a layered sercurity approach is better...just putting it out there.

Capt.Jack Sparrow said:

Jacee said:

Can I say phttt! to that report? It certainly can't be un-biased None of the surveys regarding Anti-virus programs are.

We all find our 'own' special niche with what works for us.

I have to agree on this one !! :)

- Captain

I also agree. There is a big difference from a controlled lab test and using an anti-virus program in the real world. Testing methods can be and often are designed to produce certain results.

No anti-virus is 100% perfect. They can't be; the bad guys can write malicious code faster than the the AV folks keep up with them. The best anti-virus today may not be the best next week simply because a new malicious code appeared and that AV has not yet been updated for it yet while another AV has.

That said, there are differences in the various programs as to how the AV does its job, how it scans, what it scans, how much resources it uses, etc.

I think the quest for the best AV program is like the quest for the best processor or graphics card. The best is only best for a short time as the completion makes improvements, flaws are found, etc.

In the end, most any first line AV program is good. How good it is depends on how well it works on one's particular system and, above all, the individual's surfing habits, social site usage, and how careful he or she is about clicking on links. In spite of good habits, a person can still get by a drive by.

kurahk7 said:

Norton updates constantly, every 5 minutes or so.

That does not negate the lag between the time a new malware program is released and Norton or any other AV enterprise analyzes it, writes the update, and the update is sent to users.

CarlTR6 said:

kurahk7 said:

Norton updates constantly, every 5 minutes or so.

That does not negate the lag between the time a new malware program is released and Norton or any other AV enterprise analyzes it, writes the update, and the update is sent to users.

That is a very good point. In light of the time needed for all of that, it does not really matter whether the updates are every hour or every 24 hours. I suspect the frequent update scenario is more of a marketing gimmick.

whs said:

CarlTR6 said:

kurahk7 said:

Norton updates constantly, every 5 minutes or so.

That does not negate the lag between the time a new malware program is released and Norton or any other AV enterprise analyzes it, writes the update, and the update is sent to users.

That is a very good point. In light of the time needed for all of that, it does not really matter whether the updates are every hour or every 24 hours. I suspect the frequent update scenario is more of a marketing gimmick.

I agree with you - and apparently an effective one.

On the other hand I have to concede that NIS is a damn good product. It has never let me down - unlike MSE.

malexous said:

whs said:

CarlTR6 said:

That does not negate the lag between the time a new malware program is released and Norton or any other AV enterprise analyzes it, writes the update, and the update is sent to users.

That is a very good point. In light of the time needed for all of that, it does not really matter whether the updates are every hour or every 24 hours. I suspect the frequent update scenario is more of a marketing gimmick.

It can make a difference. Sending a definition as soon as a threat is analysed is better than waiting a few hours to send it.

+1. i quite agree with you on this. I have used Norton 2010 for a very long time and it has never let me down. Currently testing Norton 2011 beta, which is quite impressive.