Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Kaspersky, Nod32, Bit

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.

cheeriokilla said:

TheIgster said:

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.

fillup said:

TheIgster said:

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.

TheIgster said:

cheeriokilla said:

TheIgster said:

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.

fillup said:

TheIgster said:

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

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.

fillup said:

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.

TheIgster said:

fillup said:

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.

Dinesh said:

fillup said:

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.