Which is the best?

chubalz · 23 Jul 2010

whs said:

JonM33 said:

A Guy said:

I think MSE uses less resources, integrates well with windows, isn't intrusive, and, oh year, it's free

A Guy

I agree with all points. Microsoft has really made paid security software rather moot these days.

The working set of MSE is rather large. NIS 2010 is much smaller. It may not matter, but it is a point to retain.
In the professional AV comparisons, NIS2010 gets much higher marks than MSE. At least in the ones I have seen. See example below - NIS2010 is under Symantec.
I use both (on different systems). I never had trouble with NIS, but some with MSE.

The graph is dated on February

I do believe on 5months updating Virus definition will change the result.

I have high expectations on MSE

BTW! Ill vote for MSE.

whs · 23 Jul 2010

The graph is dated on February

True. But that's the one I had handy. More recent reports are not much different. I use MSE myself on a couple of systems. But I also caught some malware (3 times) that it did not detect. Fortunately I always have yesterday's image where I can go back to.

JonM33 · 23 Jul 2010

merkat106 said:

Used both, had better results from Norton.

My experience:
Norton IS (had about 2 years/2 versions) = no viruses, no malware trouble
MSE (temporary usage) = got several viruses that trashed 7

Niether are memory hogs - or bloated. Norton that was out 3+ years ago was bloated & inefficient, but the software has been rewritten.

What are you doing to warrant viruses? You only get them if you install illegal software (keygens, cracks, etc) and don't browse legitimate websites. Blame yourself for those viruses, not MSE. I haven't had an infection yet and I have been using it since it came out nearly a year ago.

yowanvista said:

NIS uses less resources than MSE, 10-20MB compared to 45-60MB MSE

That's funny because msseces.exe is using a whopping 4,624KB physical memory on my system right now. I'd say that's extremely light weight.

malexous · 23 Jul 2010

JonM33 said:

What are you doing to warrant viruses? You only get them if you install illegal software (keygens, cracks, etc) and don't browse legitimate websites. Blame yourself for those viruses, not MSE. I haven't had an infection yet and I have been using it since it came out nearly a year ago.

Hacked websites and malicious ads can serve you malware.

JonM33 said:

That's funny because msseces.exe is using a whopping 4,624KB physical memory on my system right now. I'd say that's extremely light weight.

MSE has two processes.

Edit: MsMpEng.exe belongs to MSE.

whs · 23 Jul 2010

My MsMpEng.exe shows 65.5MBs right now. But you have to click "Show processes from all users" in TM to see it.

Petey7 · 23 Jul 2010

Altogether MSE is using about 80MB on my computer. If a 80MB program is too much for your computer to handle, its time to start shopping for more ram.

whs · 23 Jul 2010

Petey7 said:

Altogether MSE is using about 80MB on my computer. If a 80MB program is too much for your computer to handle, its time to start shopping for more ram.

As I said in my original post: "it may not matter". It is just a point to note. My systems all have 3 and 4GBs of RAM. For me it does not matter. But for someone who runs on 1GB of RAM, it may matter. And some of the older systems are not all upgradeable.

Petey7 · 23 Jul 2010

My dad has MSE on his computer which has 512MB 333MHz RAM and his computer runs faster than it did with any other AV program we he tried out. To be far its WinXP not 7. I guess it also depends on what you do.

I also doubt RAM usuage is all that matters. According to that chart McAfee uses less resorces, but we've had it on all three of our current computers and all three ran slow as dirt with it. When using AVG or MSE the computers are several times faster.

EDIT: Well, my moms computer wasn't slow as dirt but it is still slightly faster with MSE.

JonM33 · 23 Jul 2010

malexous said:

MSE has two processes.

Edit: MsMpEng.exe belongs to MSE.

Ah, yes. 72,104KB for that one. I didn't realize that but I have 4GB RAM anyway.

whs said:

As I said in my original post: "it may not matter". It is just a point to note. My systems all have 3 and 4GBs of RAM. For me it does not matter. But for someone who runs on 1GB of RAM, it may matter. And some of the older systems are not all upgradeable.

I have a Windows XP SP3 test VM set with 512MB memory and it's not slow at all running MSE Beta.

Petey7 · 23 Jul 2010

JonM33 said:

I have a Windows XP SP3 test VM set with 512MB memory and it's not slow at all running MSE Beta.

So in VM and on a real PC (although my dad has the stable 1.0 release) with 512MB ram, it doesn't slow either down. So what is the problem with it?