Windows 7 anti-malware products compared

[Brink]

AV-TEST Institute, an independent test lab specializing in anti-malware, has released the results of their latest tests of anti-malware products. These tests were run on 64-bit Windows 7 in January and February of this year.

The tests compared nine business products and 25 consumer products. The products were compared for detection of malware, including 0-day malware for which the products had no signature; performance impact on the system; and false positive detections and warnings.

Read more at: Windows 7 anti-malware products compared | ZDNet

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Again MSE has the worst scores yet many Geeks still prefer it.

 

[TVeblen]

There is not much technical information in that article. Actually, a rather short summary. It would be interesting to see more of the test results.

A little more here:
http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-7/janfeb-2014/

Are these folks selling certifications for AV manufacturers to display on their products?

 

[King Arthur]

Again MSE has the worst scores yet many Geeks still prefer it.

It's pretty hard to suggest other choices when MSE boasts uncomparable integration and stable co-existence with its Windows host.

 

[Golden]

Again MSE has the worst scores yet many Geeks still prefer it.

It's pretty hard to suggest other choices when MSE boasts uncomparable integration and stable co-existence with its Windows host.

Finally someone understands!

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

What is the use of incomparable integration and stable co-existence if it lets viruses through?

 

[Golden]

What is the use of incomparable integration and stable co-existence if it lets viruses through?

Whats the use of an anti-virus product if it BSOD's your system?

 

[RoasterMen]

Lol you guys must understand that the creators of viruses knows how to remove the virus. So what I mean is the stronger the AV the stronger the virus could get in.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

What is the use of incomparable integration and stable co-existence if it lets viruses through?

Whats the use of an anti-virus product if it BSOD's your system?

Who said anything about BSODs? Avast free doesn't BSOD my system. There are others that don't either. Besides, I would rather have a BSOD than an undetected virus.

 

[Golden]

You have to remember its not always about you. Your experiences don't necessarily reflect those of others who do use MSE, or any other AV product.

The BSOD reference is exactly what KingArthur is referring to. Broaden your horizons a bit and have a look at the objective analysis in the BSOD section some time.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

You have to remember its not always about you. Your experiences don't necessarily reflect those of others who do use MSE, or any other AV product.

The BSOD reference is exactly what KingArthur is referring to. Broaden your horizons a bit and have a look at the objective analysis in the BSOD section some time.

Seriously? A few people have BSODs that were supposedly caused by AVs and all of a sudden they are all bad except for MSE? More often, the cause is from the AV not playing well with some other software, not the system; nothing is 100% compatible. I had problems with IE10 crashing frequently until I found it was AVAST's Web Rep function not playing well with WOT. I turned off Web Rep and everything was fine after that.

So you are saying MSE isn't bad despite all the professional tests that say it is?

Some AVs suck (including MSE). Others don't. Build a bridge and get over it.

Frankly, based on your recent posts after I've posted, I'm beginning to think if I said the sky was blue you would say it was some other color. Or post an eyeroll emoticon (that was getting old).

 

[King Arthur]

While I thankfully haven't had any AV-related BSODs, I have had Avast completely wither down my Windows XP machine such that its boot times and data I/O operations became very slow. I even had to uninstall Avast at one point because it was bogging down the system so bad I might as well have had a virus.

MSE on the other hand has yet to compromise a system's stability in my experience, I also do not particularly care about any reviews of AV software so its so-called "ineffectiveness" is of no concern to me. This is why I always complement MSE's uncomparable stability and always suggest MSE as my first AV suggestion.

 

[Golden]

From a stability and integration perspective, MSE is the only one that never conflicts with the system. All other AV' can and do cause BSOD's. Fact. Does that mean they are bad? No one has ever said that.

You said geeks still insist on using it, KingArthur gave you the reason why, and I provided the objective observations. No need to get defensive. Like I said, have a look in the BSOD section, and try to at least understand an alternative viewpoint.

 

[mjf]

I agree that system stability doesn't outweigh anti-malware protection. MSE doesn't look great at the moment.
I've used Norton on a couple of systems for 5 years now without problems. Products like Norton deserve attention if they cause a significant number of people problems (eg. BSODs, compatibility issues with other software).

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I'm sorry, I still don't see the point of using something that doesn't do a good job of what it is supposed just because it consistently does no harm. With all the AVs available, if one caused a problem, another one probably wouldn't. One advantage of the freebies is they usually have fewer bells and whistles added; it's those bells and whistles that are the most likely to cause problems.

The real shame is, when MSE first came out, it received excellent reviews but, a year or so later, it went seriously south.

 

[King Arthur]

One advantage of the freebies is they usually have fewer bells and whistles added; it's those bells and whistles that are the most likely to cause problems.

MSE actually wins here because it simply scans and keeps a look out for viruses and nothing more. It labels itself as an anti-virus and does that job and only that job relatively well while almost never compromising Windows's stability.

By comparison, Avast is relatively bloated with such (optional!) bells and whistles like "streaming" updates and built-in sandboxing, and has even exhibited adware-like behavior to me with popups from time to time. Not to mention the fact it once threw my Windows XP machine into a quagmire before like I mentioned earlier.

For the record, I am mentioning only MSE and Avast in this discussion because they are the only AV I use/used daily. I would mention Norton and AVG, but the last time I used them was almost 10+ years ago and my experience from back then is very likely not relevant today.

Obviously we share differing opinions, but lambasting MSE simply because it garners terrible reviews is not appropriate. In fact, I question whether putting so much singular trust into AV-TEST's reviews is a good idea; while they are one of many decent deciding factors to base your choice of AVs off of, it should not be your only source of opinion.

I also realize that you fundamentally hold MSE in a negative light as I remember you finding issue with the way it updated itself back when MSE's definition auto-updating had a coughing fit and lambasting it harshly back then. I understand and accept that you don't like MSE, but I ask that you approach MSE with an open mind and properly acknowledge the benefits that MSE does factually have over its peers.

 

[mjf]

I'm sorry, I still don't see the point of using something that doesn't do a good job of what it is supposed just because it consistently does no harm.

I'm supporting this point of view.

 

[Golden]

I'm sorry, I still don't see the point of using something that doesn't do a good job of what it is supposed just because it consistently does no harm.

In my experience it serves me well, perhaps there are others of the same opinion. There in lies the point...if you don't like it, thats fine, but there is no real need to start a personal crusade and bag it at every opportunity you get. Is there? You've made the same point over and over and over and over. Its time to get over it

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...MSE actually wins here because it simply scans and keeps a look out for viruses and nothing more. It labels itself as an anti-virus and does that job and only that job relatively well while almost never compromising Windows's stability.

By comparison, Avast is relatively bloated with such (optional!) bells and whistles like "streaming" updates and built-in sandboxing, and has even exhibited adware-like behavior to me with popups from time to time. Not to mention the fact it once threw my Windows XP machine into a quagmire before like I mentioned earlier.

For the record, I am mentioning only MSE and Avast in this discussion because they are the only AV I use/used daily. I would mention Norton and AVG, but the last time I used them was almost 10+ years ago and my experience from back then is very likely not relevant today.

Obviously we share differing opinions, but lambasting MSE simply because it garners terrible reviews is not appropriate. In fact, I question whether putting so much singular trust into AV-TEST's reviews is a good idea; while they are one of many decent deciding factors to base your choice of AVs off of, it should not be your only source of opinion.

I also realize that you fundamentally hold MSE in a negative light as I remember you finding issue with the way it updated itself back when MSE's definition auto-updating had a coughing fit and lambasting it harshly back then. I understand and accept that you don't like MSE, but I ask that you approach MSE with an open mind and properly acknowledge the benefits that MSE does factually have over its peers.

The same could be said about your opinions of Avast. If you set it up properly, you won't receive any popups, period (I prefer to be notified when a virus gets blocked but that is the only notification I have turned on). There is also a gaming mode that keeps it running in the background should you don't want any popups or anything else running other than the AV.

Unlike MSE (to put it mildly), Avast is highly customizable. The additional features can be selectively disabled and won't cause any trouble; as I mentioned earlier, I disabled the Web Rep because it didn't play well with WOT and, since I prefer WOT, I kept it and not Web Rep. There are people who actually like those extra features, either some or all of them.

Updates aren't "streaming"; there is a provision for determining how often you want Avast to check for updates. I prefer fairly frequently so Avast is more likely to have the latest definitions (no AV can detect a virus it doesn't have an update for). Someone else may prefer less frequently.

Granted, initially setting up Avast can be a bit tedious but, once it has been set up, that's it.

Lambasting MSE because it garners terrible reviews is actually very appropriate. MSE isn't a movie where a review would be highly subjective based on personal tastes. AVs are suppose to stop viruses from getting and in and AV reviewers test just that by throwing a bunch of viruses at each AV being tested which are then rated by which ones let how many slip through, a very objective way to rate the AVs tested (some reviewers also rate other things as well, such as ease of use). If only one AV tester rated MSE low, especially only one time, I also would question it but, the fact is, ever since after the first year or so, it has been repeatedly ranked at or near the bottom of the list by multiple respected AV testers. I very strongly "suspect" most, if not all, of the reviewers know what they are doing. And, the fact is, MSE is not doing its job very well.

Although my experience doesn't mean anything to you, the fact that MBAM was picking up infections while I was using MSE told me it wasn't all that great and I was considering dumping it, especially since the reviews weren't all that great anymore; the final straw was finding out it hadn't been updating like I thought it had (one downside of MSE's acclaimed "smaller footprint" is it doesn't give the user much control or an easy way to monitor things like if updates actually happening) and the only way to get it to update automatically was to schedule quick scans, something that wasn't practical for a machine that wasn't used on a schedule.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I'm sorry, I still don't see the point of using something that doesn't do a good job of what it is supposed just because it consistently does no harm.

In my experience it serves me well, perhaps there are others of the same opinion. There in lies the point...if you don't like it, thats fine, but there is no real need to start a personal crusade and bag it at every opportunity you get. Is there? You've made the same point over and over and over and over. Its time to get over it

The same could be said for you recommending an AV that AV testers repeatedly gives a poor rating.