Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Kaspersky, Nod32, Bit

04 Dec 2009   #11
whs
Microsoft MVP

Vista, Windows7, Mint Mate, Zorin, Windows 8
 
 

The one thing I noticed since using MSE in lieu of Norton IS09 is a drastic increase of tracking cookies. I detect them with SAS scans. And I do what I have always done - look at technical websites - no smut.


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
04 Dec 2009   #12
TheIgster

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by cheeriokilla View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by TheIgster View Post
Avira best on detection but still a ton of false positives from them.
You know what?.

I keep hearing this... But I've yet to get ONE false positive from Avira.

I'm dead serious.
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by fillup View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by TheIgster View Post
Avira best on detection but still a ton of false positives from them.

You know people keep saying Avira has lots of false positives, but if you actually read the August 23 2009 Av-Comparatives report you'll see Avira only had 21 false positives out of nearly 1.6 million samples.

Sure 21 is more than the 5 false positives that Avast got, but Avast MISSED 21,112 viruses that Avira detected!

NOD32 got 12 false positives, but missed 33,719 more viruses than Avira.

Avira rules!
Um, guys, it is well known on just about EVERY test out there that Avira has some of the most, if not the most false positives. No need to get defensive. If you have chosen Avira, great, but it is well documented they have some of the most false positives in just about every test.

Where did I state that Avira was not good at detection? I was merely talking about fp's, which IMO are just as bad or worse than actual malware because the software you have chosen to protect you actually deletes something it shouldn't or reports that something is a virus when it is not.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
04 Dec 2009   #13
fillup

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by TheIgster View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by cheeriokilla View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by TheIgster View Post
Avira best on detection but still a ton of false positives from them.
You know what?.

I keep hearing this... But I've yet to get ONE false positive from Avira.

I'm dead serious.
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by fillup View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by TheIgster View Post
Avira best on detection but still a ton of false positives from them.

You know people keep saying Avira has lots of false positives, but if you actually read the August 23 2009 Av-Comparatives report you'll see Avira only had 21 false positives out of nearly 1.6 million samples.

Sure 21 is more than the 5 false positives that Avast got, but Avast MISSED 21,112 viruses that Avira detected!

NOD32 got 12 false positives, but missed 33,719 more viruses than Avira.

Avira rules!
Um, guys, it is well known on just about EVERY test out there that Avira has some of the most, if not the most false positives. No need to get defensive. If you have chosen Avira, great, but it is well documented they have some of the most false positives in just about every test.

Where did I state that Avira was not good at detection? I was merely talking about fp's, which IMO are just as bad or worse than actual malware because the software you have chosen to protect you actually deletes something it shouldn't or reports that something is a virus when it is not.
Come on, the Fp issue with Avira is being WAY overblown. 21 Fp's out of 1.6 MILLION samples is not a "ton". Plus, Avira detected THOUSANDS of viruses that others missed.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...c_report23.pdf
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

04 Dec 2009   #14
Dinesh

Windows® 8 Pro (64-bit)
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by fillup View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by TheIgster View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by cheeriokilla View Post
You know what?.

I keep hearing this... But I've yet to get ONE false positive from Avira.

I'm dead serious.
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by fillup View Post


You know people keep saying Avira has lots of false positives, but if you actually read the August 23 2009 Av-Comparatives report you'll see Avira only had 21 false positives out of nearly 1.6 million samples.

Sure 21 is more than the 5 false positives that Avast got, but Avast MISSED 21,112 viruses that Avira detected!

NOD32 got 12 false positives, but missed 33,719 more viruses than Avira.

Avira rules!
Um, guys, it is well known on just about EVERY test out there that Avira has some of the most, if not the most false positives. No need to get defensive. If you have chosen Avira, great, but it is well documented they have some of the most false positives in just about every test.

Where did I state that Avira was not good at detection? I was merely talking about fp's, which IMO are just as bad or worse than actual malware because the software you have chosen to protect you actually deletes something it shouldn't or reports that something is a virus when it is not.
Come on, the Fp issue with Avira is being WAY overblown. 21 Fp's out of 1.6 MILLION samples is not a "ton". Plus, Avira detected THOUSANDS of viruses that others missed.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...c_report23.pdf
G Data is better than Avira.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
04 Dec 2009   #15
fillup

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

Yes GData has the highest detection rate and low Fp's....But GData uses a lot of system resources and slows down the computer too much. That's why I use Avira...2nd highest detection rate and very light on system resources.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Dec 2009   #16
TheIgster

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by fillup View Post
Come on, the Fp issue with Avira is being WAY overblown. 21 Fp's out of 1.6 MILLION samples is not a "ton". Plus, Avira detected THOUSANDS of viruses that others missed.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...c_report23.pdf
21 fp's is huge IMO. Compared to 5 for Avast, I would say very huge. Regardless of detection. it's easy to detect more when you flag things that shouldn't be.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Dec 2009   #17
Dinesh

Windows® 8 Pro (64-bit)
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by fillup View Post
Yes GData has the highest detection rate and low Fp's....But GData uses a lot of system resources and slows down the computer too much. That's why I use Avira...2nd highest detection rate and very light on system resources.
Again, its just a mere myth that G data is heavy on resources like its previous versions. The 2010 version of G Data is using around 15-25 MB RAM.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Dec 2009   #18
Dinesh

Windows® 8 Pro (64-bit)
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by TheIgster View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by fillup View Post
Come on, the Fp issue with Avira is being WAY overblown. 21 Fp's out of 1.6 MILLION samples is not a "ton". Plus, Avira detected THOUSANDS of viruses that others missed.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...c_report23.pdf
21 fp's is huge IMO. Compared to 5 for Avast, I would say very huge. Regardless of detection. it's easy to detect more when you flag things that shouldn't be.
Seconded.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Dec 2009   #19
fillup

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by TheIgster View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by fillup View Post
Come on, the Fp issue with Avira is being WAY overblown. 21 Fp's out of 1.6 MILLION samples is not a "ton". Plus, Avira detected THOUSANDS of viruses that others missed.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...c_report23.pdf
21 fp's is huge IMO. Compared to 5 for Avast, I would say very huge. Regardless of detection. it's easy to detect more when you flag things that shouldn't be.

The only time Avira has Fp'd for me has been with questionable files such as keygens.....never on legit files. Can't say the same for Avast. I have Avast on my laptop and it flagged a bunch of legit files as infected the other day.....caused by a bad update. What a mess.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Dec 2009   #20
fillup

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Dinesh View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by fillup View Post
Yes GData has the highest detection rate and low Fp's....But GData uses a lot of system resources and slows down the computer too much. That's why I use Avira...2nd highest detection rate and very light on system resources.
Again, its just a mere myth that G data is heavy on resources like its previous versions. The 2010 version of G Data is using around 15-25 MB RAM.
I haven't tried 2010 yet. But the last version of G Data I tried slowed my computer way down. With Avira I don't even noticed its there. Uses about 7mb of ram.

Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Kaspersky, Nod32, Bit-capture2-2.png


My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Kaspersky, Nod32, Bit




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Kaspersky or Microsoft security essentials
Like the title says , If you have to choose Which is better ?
System Security
Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Kaspersky, Avast, BitDefender, Avira
latest news from softpedia on security systems put to test, microsoft is up there with the big boys>Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Kaspersky, Avast, BitDefender, Avira, Symantec, McAfee, AVG, Panda - - Softpedia
News
Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Kaspersky?
Which do you think is better? I'm sticking with Kaspersky for now.
System Security


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App