Microsoft Essentials vs. Norton's 2010

View Poll Results: Microsoft or Norton 2010

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • Microsoft Essentials

    45 72.58%
  • Norton 2010

    17 27.42%
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

  1. Posts : 11,990
    Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit
       #41

    whs said:
    On the other hand I have to concede that NIS is a damn good product. It has never let me down - unlike MSE.
    I don't disagree at all. I used to use Norton anti-virus before it got so bloated and resource hungry. I realize that has been changed now. I personally do like like suites. I don't like to purchase what I can get for free. I don't use MSE either.

    malexous said:
    whs said:
    CarlTR6 said:

    That does not negate the lag between the time a new malware program is released and Norton or any other AV enterprise analyzes it, writes the update, and the update is sent to users.
    That is a very good point. In light of the time needed for all of that, it does not really matter whether the updates are every hour or every 24 hours. I suspect the frequent update scenario is more of a marketing gimmick.
    It can make a difference. Sending a definition as soon as a threat is analysed is better than waiting a few hours to send it.
    In all actuality a few hours or even a day makes little practical difference. Malware does not just suddenly explode and blanket the internet. It usually takes a day or two to analyze it, verify it, write the code, test the code, and look for possible variations of the malware code. Certainly less complex malware can be countered on short order.

    Unless everyone subscribed to Norton updates has their computers on 24/7, many subscribers aren't going to get the update for a day or so anyway.

    I agree with Wolfgang; it is more of a marketing gimmick than actual practical security value. It is a "feel good" thing to convince consumers that are getting extra bang for their money. And I'm not saying this is bad; it is good strategy.
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 622
    Arch Linux 64-bit
       #42

    But within those few hours, after analyzing, the malware could infect a computer. If it bypasses all other prevention methods (heuristics, behaviour blocker, etc.) that update could have been important. It would have already stole my personal information, for example.

    ...Though, everyone should be using a layered defence these days.
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 289
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #43

    malexous said:
    But within those few hours, after analyzing, the malware could infect a computer. If it bypasses all other prevention methods (heuristics, behaviour blocker, etc.) that update could have been important. It would have already stole my personal information, for example.

    ...Though, everyone should be using a layered defence these days.
    Agreed, although I'm accustomed to clicking the update button every half an hour or so. MSE only updates every 12 hours?
      My Computer


  4. Posts : 2
    Windows 7
       #44

    Jacee said:
    Can I say phttt! to that report? It certainly can't be un-biased None of the surveys regarding Anti-virus programs are.

    We all find our 'own' special niche with what works for us.

    The original poster is using results from AV-Comparatives. They are well known to be un-biased, and they are among the best for comparing anti-virus software.

    From their "about us" page:

    " AV-Comparatives is an Austrian Non-Profit-Organization, which is providing independent Anti-Virus software tests free to the public. For more information, please refer to the document with the FAQ. "

    Their about us page is here:
    AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - About Us
    --
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 7,878
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #45

    I typically use and recommend MSE to those with fairly safe web browsing habits. For more robust security, it's usually ESET that I recommend to friends.

    NIS just has had such a bad history that I don't even consider loading it onto my box. It's just been real bad in the past a very difficult product to remove when you want to use something else instead.

    In the end I think this all comes down to habits. I don't need very robust protection as I don't take many risks. And if I do something questionable, it's almost always from my Linux machine or a virtual machine. So, because of these reasons, I elect to save my money and not purchase NIS...it wouldn't provide me enough value to justify the cost. For others, it might be a different story.
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 186
    Windows Seven, Ubuntu
       #46

    The best antivirus is noscript and adblock. I use those with MSE and Malwarebytes, and as my dad always said "don't do anything stupid".

    I used Norton for over 6 years. It has it's issues, nothing is perfect. I didn't hate it. I just know how to protect my computer for free now. I think out of all the free AV, that I trust MSE because Microsoft has an interest in protecting their product and in that sense there is a lot of money behind their free product. Where as most other free AV's interests are selling you the pay for version.

    Also I have my Linux drive that protects me if MS gets jammed. I have Bitdefender for unices (free) on my Linux drive. It scans for windows virus' and I can scan my windows drive from there while it is shut down. I can also access my windows drive through my Linux file manager and remove anything that shouldn't be there.
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 186
    Windows Seven, Ubuntu
       #47

    pparks1 said:
    I typically use and recommend MSE to those with fairly safe web browsing habits. For more robust security, it's usually ESET that I recommend to friends.

    NIS just has had such a bad history that I don't even consider loading it onto my box. It's just been real bad in the past a very difficult product to remove when you want to use something else instead.

    In the end I think this all comes down to habits. I don't need very robust protection as I don't take many risks. And if I do something questionable, it's almost always from my Linux machine or a virtual machine. So, because of these reasons, I elect to save my money and not purchase NIS...it wouldn't provide me enough value to justify the cost. For others, it might be a different story.
    I do my banking from my Kubuntu install cd without install.
      My Computer


  8. Posts : 686
    Windows 7 x64 Ultimate SP1
       #48

    I use MSE on one system and NIS 2010/2011 beta on another.

    The thing where Norton has made major improvements is blocking Blackhat SEO (poisoned searches) and fake scan page blocking. It didn't happen when 2010 was released, but at some time during last winter they were obviously busy about it and they delivered, by my criteria.

    This is what I mean by fake scan page, if there is someone who's not in the know.


    I haven't been able to actually see a fake scan page for months now, NIS blocks them all routinely (or at least those that Google didn't get to block yet ).

    MSE doesn't interact with browsers sufficently to stop that kind of thing..

    See example of NIS protecting Google Chrome, the newest dev build.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Microsoft Essentials vs. Norton's 2010-noattack.png  
      My Computer


  9. Posts : 8,476
    Windows® 8 Pro (64-bit)
       #49

    I definitely recommend Norton products. They have improved a lot in the past.
      My Computer


  10. Posts : 4,517
    Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
       #50

    Dinesh said:
    I definitely recommend Norton products. They have improved a lot in the past.
    Same.

    I used to hate them as they were so slow and bloated, however with 2009 and up, they have won back my buisiness.

    I usually reccomend MSE for those looking for good AV thats free, and NIS for those who do not mind paying, as well as Malwarebytes as a on demand with either.

    NIS does an excellent job for me and so far no issues at all. So I can't complain.

    Although MB has never found anything, I still think its useful for weekly scans, regardless what AV you use.
    The fact it never does just tell me NIS is doing its job well :)




    I will certainly renew my Norton sub when it expires.


    As far as scan speed however, would that not depend more on HD speed that CPU cores/speed? I mean, the CPU can only process the items as its read, right?
      My Computer


 
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About 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 01:16.
Find Us