Which is the best?

[chubalz]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Petey7]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

 

[Faladu]

I still can't believe Norton is getting this much BUZZ, go away with the Norton, I wouldn't use it unless you PAID ME!
In summary:
Pick from many other choices and use a layered approach and tweak your system for better performance while you are at it.
Your mileage will vary.



I have no idea what whs is talking about in his tiny reply below.
Norton has sucked for a long time, this isn't just my random opinion. *cough*
Facts? lol

 

[whs]

I still can't believe Norton is getting this much BUZZ, go away with the Norton, I wouldn't use it unless you PAID ME!
In summary:
Pick from many other choices and use a layered approach and tweak your system for better performance while you are at it.
Your mileage will vary.

See, here is the difference. We have facts, you have an opinion.

 

[Night Hawk]

I use Avast and Avira as an on demand scanner. I have layers of protection. Tried to download the trojan simulator, and even disabling each program as it detected it, I never was allowed to download it, lol. If it gets past the front line, it gets tackled by the back line

Trojan Simulator

A Guy

Have a look at the attached image on even that saw an immediate alert when going to download the zip file. You wouldn't see that come up with numerous programs in addition to the MS SE unless you have an effective firewall inplace.

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.

I had a similar experience. MSE is not watertight.

Far from watertight would be a better definition. But the W.Defender and other MS removers over the last several years have also sadly lacked.

Norton definitely needed to see some vast improvements in that area by Symantec having tried the System Works out several years back and said no way!

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.

I had a similar experience. MSE is not watertight.

Which is the prime reason to approach security in a layered approach .... no one app will catch it all ...

That sums things up nicely! These malware writers always manage to find loop holes and other ways to get thing past the better known more popular softwares as well as the ones MS releases from time to time.

For the av program here with a 2yr. license I'll run that primarily while still adding a little something onto IE for assisting in filtering out crap sites. The firewall blocked one side track site offering cashback on purchases when going to pay for the full version of one software.

When taking a look at what was being blocked the site wanted you to sign up and pay a $25 monthly fee! to supposedly? take advantage of getting cah back on purchases?! SCAM is the word and why good site filtering is even more important. If you can avoid the crud sites and emails with viruses attached you won't be running into the high risk factors to start with.

 

[Borg 386]

MSE has caught a couple things on mine that the paid for version hasn't.

It integrates with the system nicely and uses a small amount of resources.

I trust it more then the McAfee that came with the system.

 

[Night Hawk]

I wouldn't even allow McAfee on any system here due to past experience. no thanks!

That one gets a dump review across the board by most people you talk with anyways. The MS SE on the other hand is like the minimum protection requirement you see when first setting up any Windows installation. For not having anything at all or the free protection from MS which way would you go?

For the novice user or someone simply on a tight budget running out to buy full version softwares may be out of range where MS is finally looking into what the typical user needs since they are trying to become more customer satisfaction orientated over just being another commercial customer base only type.

 

[Petey7]

McAfee has only caused me problems. In addition to letting a multitude of viruses on my computer when I had XP and my dads, just the other day my mom got a new Dell with McAfee installed. After turning it on, I could no longer print from my computer. Yes, MucAfail on one computer started screwing with others. Turns out its poorly programed firewall causes network problems between computers and other network devices. As soon as I disabled McAfee, all my problems went away. I installed MSE on the computer and everything has been fine since.

 

[Night Hawk]

The SE won't intrude on anything since it starts off by not having a firewall for those who leave the Windows firewall option enabled. For any firewall you generally to set up the exceptions whenever any problems are seen since you could run into the same with other softwares as well.

The failing with McAfee are as you say are with the serious lack of protection the software itself has to offer which is too often next to none. But they get in with the pc manufacturers to keep their sales going as part of the prepackaged software bundles with trial versions preinstalled or offered.

 

[Petey7]

Actually, what she had was not even a trial version, but a fully licensed copy that was good for 15 months. All it took to activate was a name and an email address. They offer deals with OEMs, ISPs, and schools to get people using their software for little or no cost in hopes that people will start paying when the first subscription runs out.

 

[Night Hawk]

That would be called "sales incentives" for the most by getting people to use their stuff already prebundled onto any new system someone goes out and buys. You see this with a list of other programs as well depending on what arrangements have been made between software companies and whichever pc manufacturer is involved.

 

[A Guy]

You will always find people who are happy with xxx brand AV, if it works for you great. Assuming you would know if you had a virus, if you have never had one, then indeed it has worked for you. I've never felt a reason to switch from Avast yet, so I use it. I believe I would go to Avira if I did, but MSE would be on the short list. I think we all agree that a layered approach, with recent known good images, along with common sense (and many will add a sandbox program) is the best plan. Beyond that, unless picking programs that test poorly, you can mix and match what works for you. A Guy